Lighthouse Journal

"Christophobia" Rhetoric: Politics as a Religion

2012-01-30T08:43:00.000-06:00

Suzanne Fields writes in TurningSwords in Bombs…

Whatis Islam? Is the barbarity of September 11 rooted in the preaching of Muhammad? Or are the Islamists, the Islamic fascists, bent on thedestruction of all who disagree with them, merely an aberration,mixing politics, religion and violence in an appeal to the lowestpsychological denominators of suicide bombers? Historians, politicalscientists and psychologists are all over the place in supplyinganswers to these questions. … The historical forces at play areobvious. Bernard Lewis, a leading scholar of Islamist rage, placesthe fault line at the failure of the Muslim world to keep up with theWest in the modern world. Diminishing Muslim power is both ahumiliation and in Muslim minds a reversal of divine law, driving thelosers to pick through the verses of the Koran to find justificationfor violence against winners. … Other scholars blame Westerncolonialism and imperialism, along with Judeo-Christian traditions,as contributing to the violent mentality of the extremists. Theseaberrations, they say, cannot be found in the teachings of Muhammad.… Islamists distorted this phenomenon for their own malevolentends, fusing politics and religion into an all-purpose aggression forthe “long-suffering victims” of Western imperial expansion. Butthere’s another view. “The Middle East’s experience is theculmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, andpatterns of behavior, first and foremost the region’s millenarianimperial tradition,” writes Efraim Karsh, a British scholar, in“Islamic Imperialism,” a provocative and persuasive book. … Helooks directly to the words of Muhammad, who in his farewell addressto his followers ordered them to fight all men until they submit withthe assertion that “There is no god but Allah.” … Muhammadproselytized with violence and used violence to consolidate conquest.Occupying territory was as important as converting or killingunbelievers. When the Jews of Medina resisted Muhammad in the 7^thcentury, he beheaded the men and sold their women and children intoslavery. The prophet, who claimed to derive his power and authorityfrom Allah, was not only head of the captured states but was thesingle religious authority. “This allowed the prophet to cloakpolitical ambitions with a religious aura,” writes Mr. Karsh, aprofessor at the University of London, “and to channel Islam’senergies into its instrument of aggressive expansion.” The ultimategoal would be for the world either to embrace Islam or live under itsdomination. This goal was realized in part with the establishment ofthe Ottoman Empire, which allowed certain other religions to existbut not prosper. Christians who sought domination, on the other hand,never invoked the teachings of Christ to justify violence. … Theinterpretation of the Islamist mentality as rooted in Muhammad’sappeal to violence, and the Islamist determination for religiousdomination of the world, may not tell the whole story today, but itexplains why, for millions of Muslims, the image of the warriortrumps the image of a prophet of peace – if, indeed, there ever wasone.

InMs. Fields article, the point is clear about Islam. However, her statement:

Christians who sought domination, on the other hand, never invoked the teachings of Christ to justify violence ...

...is misleading, and not entirely correct. Examples would be the series of Crusade expeditions, other than the first one. Violence was seen in the New World, in the name of the Church by Conquistadors and Jesuit monks and priests. Christians in the medieval period burned books -- and people. The Inquisition tortured confessions from people, and if that was not enough, they either hanged them or burned at the stake. Of course, like violence begets violence, there is no justification for what atrocities are committed in the name of religion and war being declared against any nation, entity, or individual that criticizes or does not support Islamic ideology.

While the Westwill deny that this is a holy war, a war specifically toward thepeople of Islam, but instead show they are at war with Islamo-fascists– those who have twisted and used the methods of Muhammad’sconquest as written in the Qur'an (Fields made the common mistake ofspelling it like it was when the word was converted from Arabic toEnglish, thus the spelling “Koran.”) and in the annals of Arabichistory of the time -- the Islamo-fascist insists that it is indeed a"Holy War". When outrage is spoken of the murder and mayhemin the name of Islam is conducted, the Islamic religious leadershipcomplains and then attack Christians and burn their churches inretribution upon hearing or seeing something they do not like orinsults them; yet they constantly insult, and even threaten toexterminate those who are not of their faith, specifically Christiansand Jews. How is it, one may ask, that it is possible to see suchhypocrisy and recognized for what it is. But one must remember thatchildren of Islam are taught these things at an early age and that isall they know – and this is the gist of the fear the Muslims havewhen considering the idea of being in contact with those of otherfaiths, specifically Christians and Jews.

Andmeanwhile, in American schools, they are teaching about Islam to thepoint of dressing like they do and so on – hypocrisy whenChristians are not allowed to carry their Bibles to school, notallowing students to say prayers before eating a meal at thecafeteria, not allowed to mention the words "Jesus" or"God"; prevent public display of Christian icons, such asthe nativity, et cetera, remove any monuments that displays the TenCommandments and so on. In America, Christianity is the only religionthat is treated this way, despite the fact that America ispredominantly Christians. This is not freedom of religion by anymeans, but instead an outright display of prejudice and an attempt tosubvert the rights of Christians to practice and display icons oftheir religion. The 1st Amendment guarantees it. Whether the Left realizes this or not -- thissubversion of religion or a certain religion falls under the ideologyof Marxism that led to Communism. The state becomes the religion and politics its doctrine.

And then there is the political leftin America that increases the problems of the situation in regards toMuslims and the organized terrorist factions asBurtPrelutskypoints out in his articleTheReligious Left.

Ifthere is any among you who still thinks the mass media isn’t in thepocket of the Left, you merely have to compare how the Plame affairwent from being the biggest scandal since Capt. Dreyfus to anon-story once the crime couldn’t be laid at the feet of Karl Roveor Dick Cheney. … Liberals who are aware that I’m not religioussometimes take me to task for not criticizing the religious Rightwith the same zeal I bring to bear on what I refer to as thereligious Left. … The prophets of the faith include Howard Dean,Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. The fact is, I have nothing againstChristian fundamentalists. Mainly, I disagree with them on the issueof abortion. … I dislike abortions as a method of birth control,but I think they’re a necessary evil. … I honestly don’t knowhow any of the high-ranking Democrats can bear to look at themselvesin the mirror when they shave in the morning. But if I ever run intoHillary Rodham Clinton, I’ll be sure to ask her.

AndI wonder how any American voter, who claims to be a Christian, canvote for anyone in that progressive Sociocrat hierarchy or follow theDemocrat Party and its political platform without questioning theiractions, and denouncing them for what they stand for. It is theDemocrats who side with Leftists who are for partial birth abortion,yet decry that it is inhuman to administer lethal injections to aconvicted murderer. It is these people, under the party’s platform,that wants the Ten Commandments to be removed from public view or anyother Christian icon because it may offend another person ofdifferent faith or no faith in a deity or religion at all. Those arethe people who side with those who insist that not even silent prayerbe allowed in school cafeterias or anywhere on public school grounds;yet allow children to be indoctrinated into the rituals of being aMoslem, to include dressing as they do in the Middle East. It is theDemocrats who side with those who use abortion as a means ofsecondary birth control, and instead of abstinence for youth, theyhand them a box of prophylactics. Americans can have morals despitebeing of different religions or none at all.

It has to do with the“Golden Rule” and other civic laws based upon laws of morality –“thou shalt not kill”,“thou shalt not steal,”thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’swife,” and “thoushalt honor and obey thy parents, soyour days may be long.” Except for the first commandment, the TenCommandments are fundamental things to have in civic law -- it makesthe rule of law versus the rule of the mob. I don’t even know ifthe judiciary system of America (or society for that matter)recognizes/enforces the law against adultery is the one of the TenCommandments -- or even pay attention to the fact that it is part ofthe rule of law in America. Our judiciary seems to pick and choose asto what laws will be enforced -- our illegal immigration situation isa good example. There are 12 to 14 million illegal immigrants (notjust from Mexico) that remain here because laws passed by legislatorsand supposed to be enacted by the executive branch are not enforced.So, what is the proposed solution to the problem? Give the lawbreakers amnesty, an act that occurred before and only increased theamount of illegal immigrants and, at the same time, compromised ournational security and increased the flow of illegal drugs, et cetera.Laws, at least the fundamental ones, are there for a reason, just asthe U.S. Constitution had basic articles. And it is the rule of lawthat we should follow, not the rule of men or those who bend andshape those laws to conform to political ideology or perception of achanging time. The law says that the American government will notestablish a religion, in so far as government not making any law thatsays we must obey any doctrine of any religion; but the Left, theDemocratic Party, has added words and organizations like ACLU haspolluted and corrupted what was meant to be into something they thinkwill make America a utopia. The dream of a better America orimproving it is something that may be acquired, but a utopia willnever be found in this dimension. If you want to follow twistedideology, dreams of an American-style socialist-based government –then let the DNC continue its march to its agenda. It would be fareasier to clean up the GOP’s act than the DNC, at least externally– and both will get the message this election day if those who haveheld long tenure in Congress with politics as usual (both parties)find themselves suddenly back into the real world – away from ourcapitol and all of its corrupted splendor (at least for the chosenelite) because voters finally say, with the voice of their votingpower – enough is enough. We want fresh ideas; we want to see thosegood ideas that some in the Senate and the House of Representativesworked so hard to pass and try to reform the system become reality.It cannot happen unless we, the American voter, remove those who arestopping or slowing down the wheels of progress and governmentreform.
The Republicans (some, past and present) have been a disappointment, especiallythose who are following President Bush’s ideology (90% I disgreed - didn't keep his promises, like Obama), such as giving12 to 14 million law breakers amnesty – calling it whatever termthey choose to use. To put our nation into jeopardy at severallevels, from national security to our sovereignty is unacceptable. Wehave seen what social experiments can do, like Social Security, wherethe money is not your retirement fund held in “trust” – but,instead, an account to dip into whenever times get rough.Unfortunately, there have been too many “rough” times. Oneadministration falsely tells the American people that there is a“surplus”; and another tells us that dissolving the sovereigntyof America as a single nation made up of united states and forming aNorth American Union with our neighboring sovereign states isbeneficial. Beneficial to who? I can understand why the Mexicangovernment has been for it. They have been crying that America hasstolen property that belonged to them, but even their knowledge ofhistory is failed – if anyone has such a claim it would be Spain,they were the first to arrive.

Kevin McCulloughis a bit harsher on the subject and more theologically directed withmention of the idea of traditional marriage in his article WhyLiberals Channel Lucifer…

Biblicallyliterate people understand that before Satan fell, he shared anexalted place in close communion with God. But through his pride andlust for power he foolishly attempted to think himself equal to God.… I argue that these are the exact same tactics used by modernliberals. Where they disagree with the Almighty – they simplydismiss Him.

First,the being mentioned is an archangel and his name – Lucifer. Satanwas a secondary nickname that became a name to represent the evilestof evil -- just a theological fact pointed out. But Kevin's argumentis a rebuttal to the so-called "tolerance" of liberals,progressives and Sociocrats.

Another political subject that isconsidered a science to the Left is global warming. Debra Saundershas something to say about this in her article Inhofe,The Apostate…

Globalwarming is a religion, not science. That’s why acolytes in themedia attack global-warming critics not with scientific arguments,but for their apostasy. Then they laud global-warming believers notfor reducing greenhouse gases, but simply for believing globalwarming is a coming catastrophe caused by man. The important thing isto have faith in those who warn: The end is near.

Alan Sears in his articleMadderThan Ever…

Oneof the more potent (and predictable) side effects of forciblyremoving religion from public life, public conversation, and yes,public schools, is that society gradually loses touch with thereligious dimensions of life. … And the things which unsettle us …often begin to make us angry. Perhaps that explains the increasinglyopen and unrelenting fury of the Left toward Christians, as rantafter rant erupts in a variety of avenues … The savage soundbiteson NBC’s new ‘Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,’ in which AaronSorkin’s characters like Christians to the KU Klux Klan and deridethem as both wild-eyed doomsday-ers and ignorant bigots frominconsequential corners of the American landscape. The recentvirulent Rosie O’Donnell outburst, as she explained to the audienceof ‘The View’ why Christians are even more dangerous than Muslimterrorists. The increasingly aggressive efforts of universityadministrations to drive Christian students from campus, usually onthe premise that Christians are “intolerant” of homosexualbehavior and that religious activities are inherently divisive. Theescalating effort to remove crosses erected on government property tomemorialize the sacrifices of fallen servicemen and police officers –lest some atheist passer-by take offense. The inscrutable decision bythe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^thCircuit, which ruled that Christians can’t meet in a private roomat a public library because they might start studying the Bible orsinging hymns … and religion isn’t considered free speech, onpublic property. But if it’s one thing for the Left to demand thatChristians check their faith at the door, it’s another to ask us tocheck our minds. … Madonna, who justified the climatic moment ofher current “Confessions” tour, in which she hangs from agigantic cross with a “crown of thorns” on her head. Sorkin’scomparison of Christians to Ku Klux Klan members. … The endlessaccusations of “intolerance” lodged against Christians. Mocked,censored, and persecuted, we pray, change the channel, write letters,stage boycotts, complain on Conservative radio, file lawsuits, vote.In other words, we utilize the full resources of a democratic society… while our opponents force-feed their political agenda withaggressive censorship and fiats invoked by judges more obsessed withtheir own leftist liturgy than the letter of the law. O’Donnell’soutburst. How long does she think an outspoken woman who publiclyembraces lesbian behavior would last under the tolerance of Al Qaeda,whose idea of religious conversion is “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse?” The American secularist media. They dutifullyshake their heads over the rising number of sex crimes and teenpregnancies – while promoting increasingly pornographic images oneverything from daytime television to cable news programs. They warnof increasingly violent crime rates all over the country, betweencommercials for ever-more sadistic “entertainment” programs.

...andthe hypocrisy when it comes to being anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment,when it clearly shows in the statistics that those states who allowtheir law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons under specialpermit have less violent crimes …

Intheir blind determination to eradicate God from our community, fromour culture, even from our government, the American Civil LibertiesUnion and Americans United for Separation of Church and State and alltheir Leftist kindred aren’t really accomplishing the demotion ofthe Divine – Who is, by definition, un-demote-able. They are bent,rather, on destroying themselves. The only question that remains asthey head for their mad fall is whether they take our nation, and ourchildren, with them.

In Mike Adams article, he writesabout LegislatingMorality,which addresses his students in a class at UNC-Wilmington, part ofhis job as professors, he says, “isto dispel certain myths you learn in your other classes, especiallysociology. If you decide to question these myths in Sociology 101”,he tells his students, “… yourprofessor is likely to assign you to sensitivity training sessions.”

…Duringthe 1990s, liberals stated that legislation designed to cut foodstamps was “immoral.” But most liberals also adhere to the beliefthat you “can’t legislate morality.” How can a bill be“immoral” if it can’t be “moral”? … The First Amendmentclearly prevents the federal government from establishing a nationalreligion. Does it also forbid the federal government fromestablishing a national morality? Was the 13^thAmendment ban of slavery an example of Congress trying to “legislatemorality”? If your answer is “yes,” is that sufficient groundsto reinstate slavery? … Have you ever read the 1802 letter fromwhich the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” wastaken? Is there any truth to the assertion that the letter waswritten to a group of Baptists in Connecticut ensuring that theirchurch would be protected from the government by a one way wall ofprotection? How did that letter produce the justification for keepinga high school girl from mentioning Jesus at her high schoolgraduation? Is it true that Thomas Jefferson set up the University ofVirginia – using state funds – with rules including a ban onswearing and an expectation that students would “attend religiousservices”? Given that Thomas Jefferson did not attend theconstitutional convention, why is it that people often quote him wheninsisting that the “separation of church and state” is a“constitutional requirement”? Is it possible that many of theseself-described liberals are unable to differentiate between theConstitution and the Declaration of Independence? How many statesthat ratified the First Amendment had official state churches? Isthere any relationship between the ACLU’s love of communism and itshatred of religion? For the answers to all of these questions, youcan simply read LegislatingMorality,byNorman Geisler and Frank Turek. Or you can come back to class onFriday to hear me lecture on the topic of “legislating majority.”

And last (but not least), in this lineup of Christiancolumnists speaking out and questioning the ideology of Leftistpolitics – Marvin Olasky, writes in his article WereNazi Christians? Are Christians Fascists?…

Christophobiais marching through movie theaters and onto the pages of books. …The fear-mongers are not just at the publishing fringes. KevinPhillips’ rant – “AmericanTheocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, andBorrowed Money in the 21^stCentury”– hit the bestseller lists earlier this year. Nor is it surprisingthat the creators of these projects imagine crosses turning intoswastikas, because they’re drawing on writers a generation ago whothought that Nazism grew out of Christianity – so why shouldn’tit happen again? That’s why it’s good, in this year of popularculture of paranoia, to have a scholarly book that shows how thosewho developed the Nazi religion “were decidedly anti-Christianbecause they saw Christianity as a Jewish phenomenon in the 1920s tothe 1940s to be anti-Semitic meant being anti-Christian and viceversa.” … Nazi theologies praised “Aryan religion” with itsethic of power and complained that “ThePauline-Augustinian-Reformed teachings about original sin areinsulting to the ethical and moral feeling of the Germanic race.”Nazi Poewe notes, “learned their anti-Semitism outside of thechurch, then hated the church because it would not affirm theiranti-Semitism, and finally developed their outright rejection ofChristianity.” … Hitler, like many of today’s Islamo-fascists,was out to kill all Jews, Christians, and leftists. And that’s whyit’s particularly strange to see, in “AmericanTheocracy”and other productions, the sense that George W. Bush and U.S.evangelicals are a fascist threat, rather than the defenders ofliberty against those who would impose a new “final solution.”

Christophobia– finally there is a word to counter the Left’s sociocrat wordHomophobia or Islamophobia. When a liberal-sociocrat disagrees with an issue or ideology, and they cannot find facts to back them up, they resort to either untrue or misleading character attacks or just label them with a phobia.
Freedom of Religion is an important liberty; however, when a religion breeds and establishes violence, murder, and mayhem as their doctrine and threats for conversions -- the "freedom" to do so becomes null and void. If Aztecs and Mayans were alive today, would they be allowed to sacrifice humans in the name of freedom of religion?

BIBLIOTHECA

Omega File: Obama, Double Standards and Congressional Undersight

2012-01-30T02:33:00.000-06:00

From the Obama Files ...

President Obama's State of the Union and other rhetoric as proved as accurate as much of what he usuallystates, and what little he explained about just what his idea of“change” was.

First of all, the GOP debates haveended up a class-warfareissue, where Romney was judged by how little he paid in taxes (15%)compared to others, with an annual income of $20 million for the lasttwo years – the only submissions he made to show what he paid intaxes.

Thetop one percent of the wealthy of this nation pays 36% on incometaxes, while the bottom 50% of those with income pay next to nothing.How can the Sociocrats continually put down those people of the topincomes, who produce jobs for others and help the economy flow,actually believe or make the American people believe that GW Bushtaxed the rich?

Whencampaigning and after becoming president, BH Obama demanded thatthose earning more than $1 million per year pay at least 30% intaxes:

You can call this class warfareall you want, but asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as hissecretary in taxes – most Americans would call that common sense.

Yet,according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percentalready pay 29.5% when ALL federal taxes are accounted into theequation; while the middle class Americans are paying 15.1%.

Mitt Romneyis, indeed, wealthy, making $20 million per year in the last twoyears; yet because his income is almost entirely capital gains, histax rate is about 15%. No one pointed out that the gross amount hegained in capital gains was already taxed at the corporate rate of35% before he was ever paid those dividends. No Democrat squeaked acomplaint when John Kerry, also a wealthy American, paid only 13% ofhis income in 2004. it's the same old story with Democrats, theAmerican Sociocrats – “Do as I say, not as I do” – ineverything from ethics to paying their income tax. Indeed, thewealthiest members, in terms of how many wealthy members of Congressthere are, makeup the wealthiest of all other members in Congress.Check me out on this one.

Bythe way, it is no different for the rest of us who are not wealthy.We earn paychecks that are taxed before we see them. Then when webank it and make purchases, it's taxed again and again and again. What little we can wrestle from banks and financial institutions(less than 1% average) in terms of interest paid, we then mustdeclare income on that measly amount, after using taxed money to savewith in the first place.

Ifany politician (or American in general) would pay attention tohistory, they would find that true reform is when the corporate rateis lowered to the 15% Mitt Romney paid, annual (or quarterly) andsimplifying deductions also helps to stimulate the economy.Government handouts and bailouts doesn't stimulate the economy –any right-minded and truthful economist would tell you that. Lowerrates increases economic activity, and that is the FACT.

IfPresident Obama made all the wealthy pay for others taxes, he andCongress still wouldn't have enough to balance the national budget,much less pay for his reckless spending on his sociocrat agenda andpolicies.

Thehypocrites in Washington continue their Marxist rhetoric (right outof the Communist Platform established by Karl Marx), but they do notpractice what they preach. That is why wealthy people in Congress canwhine and complain and point fingers, as well as pushing for moreAmericans to be government dependent. The bigger the government thebetter, the more bureaucracy and smoke screens, the less transparentand the less likely Americans are going to actually SEE where theirtax dollars are being spent.

IRSreports that 36 of BH Obama's executive office staff owe $833,970 inback taxes, and thousands of federal employees owe back taxestotaling $3.4 billion. And what was it that Obama said?

Weneed to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lotof members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.

Thatprobably, and should, include fines and interest on money owed toIRS/Treasury; but the point is if that was you and I, we would befined and charged interest and most likely have our wages garnished –or serving time. No wonder people scramble and connive to get agovernment job – the benefits are great and their wages are muchmore than comparable private sector jobs, on the average. And, asgovernment gets bigger, they need to hire even more, and soon thereis little or no private sector jobs and then government explains tothe people why they must take control of business, and guidethe people's personal lives, all in the thought that the populacecannot fend for themselves.

Itseems that the only totally truthful statement made by BH Obama todate, is:

I make a mistake, you know, everyhour, every day.

Contraryto big lies, like:

We don't begrudge financialsuccess; we admire it.

Sociocratsdon't practice class-warfare, they are just following the ten pointsof Marxist propaganda; and the key to social engineering the populaceis through the educational institutions. It the major reason why oureducational system standard is 35^thout of 57 nations.

Enuffsaid.

Meanwhile,the American People are wondering what is taking so long toinvestigate what was going on with the OperationFast and Furious event. By the way, EricHolderwas informed about “Fast & Furious” fivemonths before testimony – check it out.

InObama's public address, he definitely stated there would be no morebailouts. Once again, he lies or is grossly misinformed by hisadvisers (CZARS).

Itoccurs like this: banks borrow at 0.25% and then take that borrowedmoney and don't use it to lend out to businesses, consumers, etcetera – but instead, repurchase short-term treasury notes. Andwhile those banks are making those huge bonuses (with depositorsmoney as well as government funds), the banks are only giving us lessthan 1% for our savings account interest and keep raising bank feesand services. What's wrong with this picture, Mr. President andmembers of Congress?

So,indirectly, the bailout continues with government involving itself inprivate banking and financial business. Money not intended to be paidback is a BAILOUT, Mr. President and members of Congress.

Themediashields Obama, so he is afforded the opportunity to push hisagenda further and receive little flak from the aforesaid media.

Likethe income tax system, it is inefficient, corrupt, and intrusive anda tool to control the People; and like the Federal Reserve, it needsto go into the trash bin. Pass the Fair Tax bill.

If I Were Elected - or - For Those Who Seek Election

2012-01-28T18:21:00.000-06:00

In the last article, I covered thedebate issues and what primary election candidates for President ofthe United States have stated since 2008, issues that are currentlyimportant to talk about in Congress and the White Office; but moreimportantly what actions must be taken to SOLVE the issues.

If I were running for the office, thisis what I have to say and what should be done. Of course, I am notgoing to run for office, so think of it as passing ideas to viablecandidates for elected office in Congress and our next President ofthe United States, to include a portion, as a warning to Supreme andUpper Court Justices and Judges who have ruled, not from theConstitution, but by public opinion and political leanings. The listis in form of bullets and I have attempted to put them in orderaccording to subject material from my handwritten notes.

ABORTION … Take government out of the issue. Stop forcing religious entities and people whose religious beliefs are against abortions, especially in circumstances that does not involve rape or danger to mother's life. In most cases, the “Day-After” pill is more a recommendation than waiting until a fetus is developed. Abortion is murder, there is no way around that, whether you are looking at it from a religious point of view or a humanitarian point of view. Government has created a business and a social program concerning abortion and must remove itself from the equation. Government has literally made it a wholesale operation that has killed at least five million innocent lives since the Roe v. Wade decision that created the nightmare. Repeal that decision because it should never have happened and impeach judges/justices who do not abide by constitutional law or tries to circumvent or legislate from the bench. It would help to relax adoption laws to provide the incentive to go another route besides abortion.
Illegal Immigration … We have, have had, a national security problem since the government ignores its own immigration laws and caters to a government south of our border who feels that we owe them something or we stole real estate belonging to them. In the case of the latter, it is not historically correct. Before the Spaniards came, the indigenous Mexicans were practicing human sacrifice, and just before the Spaniards arrived, the Aztecs were murdering people almost daily. The Spaniards created settlements and built monasteries for the monks and priests who accompanied the Conquistadors to convert the natives to Christianity. When Spain lost its power on the seas, it also lost its ability to control the colonies they developed and they were abandoned one by one. Mexico is no different. So if there is any real estate claims to be made, it should be made by Spain, not Mexico, who is a hybrid nation of Spanish and indigenous native Americans who didn't cross the Rio Grande River until the Spaniards colonized or built trading posts in California and Texas. If their invasion of illegal immigrants are based upon that falsehood, propagated by the government of Mexico as propaganda in their school textbooks, then it is an act of invasion and an act of war. Otherwise, for purposes other than transporting illegal drugs and smuggling firearms over the border, they are trying to improve their lives. But they still must use the legal method, like so many before them have done. Because of their attitude of making the United States adopt a second language and their belief that United States real estate belongs to them, they have no desire whatsoever to become a legal citizen. They come to America, end up in ghettos, and too many turn to crime; sheep to be used by the drug cartels and street gangs that have developed over the past three centuries. The reason why there are immigration laws and limitations is to: (1) Ensure there are not more immigrants than there are jobs; (2) to provide a medical examination to ensure that infectious diseases are not brought here that could cause an epidemic or pandemic; (3) allocated annual immigration limits to the number of visas for temporary work, temporary attendance to colleges and universities, or a road to naturalization as a citizen of the United States are in place because as reason #1, it must coincide with the jobs available and the unemployment rate – for obvious reasons; and (4) to ensure through a criminal background check that criminal elements, organized crime lords (cartels), and terrorists do not enter the United States. Overall, the legal immigrant is upset at the government not enforcing its immigration laws and providing amnesty programs when they went through the expense, paperwork, and time to do it legally. They have a right to be angry. Overall, immigrants whose purpose is to live and become citizens here, are better and a more loyal citizen than too many born and raised here. It is because American youth have no appreciation of what they have, while immigrants have seen and lived in places where freedom is reduced or practically doesn't exist at all. For example, why would a person escaping from a socialist or communist regime want the same political ideology to be adopted here, a democratic republic? The reason for their exodus would be moot. Employers are just as much to blame as the federal and state governments. The state governments, county and local law enforcement should be allowed to enforce immigration laws, despite being a federal matter as it has been done in the past. The problem is, once again, federal law enforcement are not doing their jobs because their superiors are not making it an issue. Employers who hire and employ illegal immigrants should be fined to the amount it costs for each immigrant to be due processed and return form their place of origin – and for each illegal immigrant found to be working there. In addition, no entitlements must be given to illegal immigrants, and those cities, counties, and states that provide sanctuary or harbor illegal immigrants should be fined just as the employers caught with illegal employees. The amendment must be rescinded that states that persons born here automatically are citizens, to read that if parents are illegal immigrants, so are the children, whether born here or not. One of the major reasons why California continually has financial problems is because of its illegal alien population that they cater to, provide medical care, education and other benefits supposed to be afforded only to those carrying legal green cards/visas or citizens of the United States. Forgery of identification and documentation is a felony; however, the illegal immigrant caught using it should merely be deported and warned if they return they will spend time in prison. The people that belong in prison are the ones providing the forged identification and documentation. If we don't do it that way we will end up with more crowding of prisons than we already have and an increase in cost to the American taxpayer. We must say NO to the North American Union, and if I were in office I would ensure that the offices set up by GW Bush and continued to operate in the Obama administration would be closed and those employees told to transfer or find jobs in the private sector (like the rest of us). No illegal immigrant or children of illegal immigrants should ever be allowed to hold public office that requires citizenship – and certainly someone that doesn't break laws. Disrespect the law in one form, it is easier to disrespect others.
ENTITLEMENTS and SOCIAL PROGRAMS … Most of these are nothing more than social engineering where those in government set up policies to make citizens become increasingly dependent upon the government. There isn't any real constitutional authority for most of them. Like HUD, Housing Urban Development, an agency that over its long period of time has had little viable results (inefficient) despite its expenditure of large amounts of taxpayer dollars and is corrupted by land and housing developers. If there is going to be such a program, it should be run like and in cooperation with Habitat for Humanity that provides those who want affordable housing a “hand up” and not a “hand out” – and part of their requirement besides making the affordable mortgage payments, with little or no interest, is to put in a given amount of hours helping to build their own house. Habitat is not only national, but international. It is probably the only successful program that Jimmy Carter developed and made popular. It is an incentive program, not an entitlement. I really don't like using the word “entitlement” - replaced from the word “welfare” because of its bad publicity – “entitlement” means that it is something owed to a citizen, or his/her constitutional right to have it – which is certainly NOT the case. I would slowly phase out and kill HUD and all its offices. Constitution states Limited Government. In the case of Social Security, it is NOT an entitlement. It is paid into all of our working lives through payments deducted from our paychecks or quarterly payments sent in by the self employed. It is a retirement program gone wrong, initially a good idea. It has gone wrong because Congress, in charge of our money, or supposed to be, has been stealing from it to pay other programs. It was supposed to be a Trust Fund – which means it is supposed to be used only for Social Security, like Medicare funds are only for Medicare. In addition, it is a retirement program paid into where the government is the beneficiary if you die and there is a balance left and citizens can only use it at the prescribed age or circumstance mandated by government. So, if you are partially disabled or disabled and cannot work, you cannot get your monthly benefit check until you go through a horrible period of bureaucracy, often having to get a lawyer, that you must pay a portion of your money to, in order to get funds that is yours. The system is so cheap that they hold your first payment back one month so if you die before the next benefit check is due, your estate won't owe them money. The Social Security system must be reformed. It must be in the hands of those who paid into it and they must decide, if 30 years of age or younger at this point, whether they want to invest their money in an investment portfolio or let it remain within the Social Security system and the person should be able to fill out a form that designates any funds remaining to a beneficiary of their choosing. Its THEIR money.

GOVERNMENT AND CHARITY … In line with the thought of welfare, government is not in the business of using (or supposed to be using) taxpayer funding to charitable causes or any other resources financed by the taxpayer. Taxation without Representation was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. Davy Crockett gave a fiery speech against Congress voting on bill that would provide a widow of an American military officer funds from taxpayers because they wouldn't provide charity funds from their own congressional salaries. However, too soon, the government forgot his speech and gradually as time went on, Congress was approving funding that belongs in the private charitable sector. In most cases, private donations are larger than what Congress will provide; and at the same time, the Veterans Administration will not pay veterans owed benefits from service-incurred injuries and illnesses unless the veteran goes through a multitude of bureaucracy until they finally give in. Often the vet dies before the payment is finally approved, despite documentation. I know, I am one of those many who have been cheated of promised benefits. Yet, the military will spend inflated amounts for their equipment, hardware, et cetera that one could purchase far cheaper in the private market. Although the military and the Veterans Administration are two different entities, they are still part of the government, supposedly overseen by Congress – who has yet to take action in my case. They ARE in charge of funds/monies according to the US Constitution. William Shakespeare was right about lawyers, and one of our problems in Congress is that there are too many of them in elected offices – we need more statesmen and stateswomen who have at least one year of college in political science and one year in business before being eligible to campaign for office.
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES … Congress is paid a salary and they also receive certain benefits while holding office as a senator or representative in the House, to include the President and Vice President and the White House cabinet and staff. However, no legislation should be allowed that automatically provides pay raises, unless voting no to it; when instead, pay raises should be drafted as a bill, like other bills, so taxpayers can respond to that bill before it is passed. In addition, no elected official should be afforded the benefit of a retirement plan, other than that which he/she has paid into the Social Security system or privately funded investment programs. When they are out of office they are out into the private sector like the rest of us. If that is done, you could almost have a sure bet that the Social Security system would be reformed quickly or more quickly. Government employees should be afforded retirement programs that they pay into and copay by their employer (government) like programs in the private sector – no more free rides. In addition, government should not be overseen by unions, a private entity, who have inflated wages and salaries much higher than the average person in the same job in the private sector. Wages and salaries with benefits, for government civilian employees should be determined by national average of that particular career field, with incremental increases according to COLA – which also goes for Social Security, ensuring that the retirement benefit checks match the COLA and up-to-date. Congress should not be allowed to provide themselves a salary increase and/or benefit increase in terms of perks to allay personal costs while in Congress, until Social Security benefit checks match COLA, as well as the military receiving the same required increase in pay.
UNITED NATIONS … The United Nations no longer serves the best interest of the United States or its people, indeed, it is detrimental. Therefore, the United Nations should be informed that the United States will not longer support their agenda nor provide funding or troops, unless it is determined to be in the interest of the US and its citizens. If troops are approved to be sent in a coalition UN operation, no UN authority will be in charge of US troops, only the authority of US officers and general staff, under the command of the President of the United States – any actions requiring use of US military being approved by Congress first. In addition, the United Nations will be given notice of eviction from the United Nations building on our soil, which will be put up for sale to the highest bidder in the private sector. The United Nations will have to find another spot of real estate, as well as fund the building of another headquarters. The United States can no longer support a world body whose goal is to become a world government, where nations lose their sovereignty or support an entity that provides committees overseeing human rights stacked with members of nations who are violating human rights. The United Nations can no longer be considered seriously, unless it drastically reforms and promotes democracy instead of hypocrisy and denies entrance to its union as members, nations who have tyranny for government and violate the accords established by the world body known as the United Nations. It must provide incentives for nations to adopt a free nation that affords certain basic human rights and liberties that we enjoy here in America and some places in Europe, as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, et cetera.
LEGISLATION … Congress must NOT pass ANY legislation without first being reviewed by an constitutional oversight committee – and they also must research as to the short- and long-term impact that would occur if the bill is passed into legislation. In addition, there should be an oversight committee designated to review all legislation still on the books and determine if it is still viable or a waste of time and taxpayer funding. The repeal or amendment of legislation should coincide with constitutional law. No bill should have amendments added at the last minute and no amendments that do not pertain to the summary statement of its use and reasons for legislation. In other words, a senator cannot amend a military spending bill with a clause that provides his home state with a new bridge. It must be passed as a separate bill or a bill whose summary is similar and related. This will help prevent pork amendments to be added into bills and reduce the cost of government.
LOBBYING SYSTEM … Designed for the good of the People, to hire professionals to represent their cause or purpose or regresses to the legislative body called Congress through its members in the Senate and House. It is not an avenue of bribery, but a means to provide factual and viable reasons to the legislative body why certain legislation needs to be approved. It is not private businesses and corporation’s means to bribe or coerce the legislative body in any manner of form – direct payments, incentives, or gifts. If the people of their state want their state government to give them their constitutional rights of the Second Amendment, then they can orchestrate through a foundation or entity like the NRA to lobby the government for the change to take place. Congress should not cater to special interest groups, like insurance companies who want legislation that stacks the cards in their favor, while the citizens suffer the effects of legislation that is intrusive and unconstitutional.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK … This powerful and uncontrolled (at least by the constitutional government) entity needs to be drastically reformed or dissolved and turn the business of banking and finances over to the private sector. Congress is the authority over monies and currency, not the staff at the Federal Reserve Bank. We have clearly seen what happens when the bailout funding checks were handed out – no one either knew or would tell or itemized where the one-half trillion dollars was spent or what checks it was made out to. In addition, it was revealed after a congressional hearing, that billions of dollars were sent to foreign banks like in Germany and France. The bailout was for America, not foreign nations. First of all, the bailouts should never have occurred. Government has no business taking over businesses, like the auto industry and controlling them by providing them bailout money. Government loans can be made, when necessary for the good of ALL, but it must be paid back in a given amount of time and the same interest rate the private citizen must pay at their bank. No more free rides. It causes financial institutions and banks to take unnecessary chances with the funds that people have paid into their system. In the same manner of approach, government needs to reduce its control and upon the private sector industry, financing, and manufacturing in order to provide incentive of the old fashioned way of success – hard work and innovative ideas turned into reality. This also means that we need to produce/educate better student graduates that will be operating these ventures and creating new ways of producing energy, less costly and more efficient.
FOREIGN POLICY … No more welfare checks to other nations, like the circumstance described above, for any reason other than disaster relief as a good neighbor policy – and then that relief will be in the form of blankets, food, clothing and other materials to help the people of that region or nation in dire need. The United States has had its share of disasters in the last decade, and our nation friends like Japan, Australia, and others have offered their hand in help. That's what friends are for. However, we have developed a policy where the United States attempts to purchase their friends – and it hasn't worked yet. In addition, we should not interfere with other nations and their political business, only providing advice if they wish to receive it – except in the case of aggression that will affect the interests of the American people and the United States.
MILITARY POWER … Our military has and must remain strong, just as our foreign policy must be fair, congenial (if allowed), and yet disciplined in dealing with other nations, friends or foe. Our military changed drastically since the end of the Cold War, as it should have. Our armed forces are now technologically advanced and smaller, but powerful strike forces to meet the demand and changes around us. However, we cannot spread that military too thin, or become the mercenaries or police force of other nations. We do need to tighten up our military budget in several areas, but still remain a strong deterrence against aggression and invasion of our soil and territorial concerns. In other words, not at the expense of our national security or trading and traveling rights around the globe. Recently, President Obama back-stabbed the only nation in the region who was willing to work peacefully with Israel, as well as friendly to the United States – Egypt. He is not doing well with Latin America nations either. Just like improving our education system, we need to elect people with experience and/or education in political science, sociology, and financing/business. If you think of it, a president, a senator, or representative – who truly wish to be statesmen or stateswomen – need to have a background that covers a lot of territory. Of course, their advisers (not CZARS) are there for a purpose, experts from every field that needs attention when operating our government; but he person also requires a sound sense of values, ethics, and good character. If mistakes, especially minor, have been made in the past and the person recognizes and corrects the action or policy – they must attempt to do so in good statesmanship manners, and most importantly, according to constitutional law.
TAXATION … Every government must have funds to operate, and the means to do so is to provide taxation. However, our constitution was produced to enable and maintain a limited government that allows the People to have the incentive and the means to excel in many areas and provide a robust economy, as well as a better way of life. The income tax must go and be replaced with a flat consumption tax provided by a bill called FairTax Act. The legislation would require the repeal of the 16^th Amendment and require another amendment to take its place that would put in place the Fair Tax, whose rules take up about 750 pages versus 14,000+ pages (and counting) of an unfair, intrusive and unconstitutional income tax system that takes money out of your earned paycheck whether you like it or not. Much cost is assumed by the government to provide the paperwork, the offices and agency of the IRS and the employees (who few of them understand it anymore than you do), force employers to be unpaid tax collectors, in fact it costs employers great deal of money to file the quarterly and annual tax code requirements. It is a mess that should never have happened, and put in place despite a ruling in 1911/1913 by the Supreme Court that it was an unlawful tax system. The only funds taken from your paycheck should be your retirement and Medicare funds for your use when reach retirement age. A consumption tax puts you more in charge of your budget, a word that Congress and the White House don't seem to comprehend or choose to ignore – budgeting. While we change our budget according to the difference between what is paid to us in wages, salaries and funding from self employment careers, the government instead of changing their budget, they demand more funds from the People. Wouldn't it be nice if the real world employees could do that with their employers? When FairTax is ironed out in the details and passed, scrutinized by the best economists we can find in America, the flat tax should be implemented so the first year of the consumption, sales/services tax would be a rate of 20%; the second year, 15%, and the third year at 10% – the same percentage as some religions call the tithe. No progressive rate required with consumption tax – those that make more tend to spend more, thus the “wealthy” automatically pay more and the People can budget their money to provide more money in regular savings, special savings, medical savings accounts and investment programs to supplement their Social Security checks and pay for their children's college expense. In addition to limiting spending and cutting back in the right places, this tax will boost the economy. In addition, when the bad times hit, government will be required to “re-budget” like the rest of us until it gets better. The attempt to change the tax code system has been going on since year 2002 – don't ya think its time to get it done?
NASA AND OTHER PROJECTS OF THE SAME CALIBER … We need to take the funds saved in other places like military and continue to advance in the space program in cooperation with other nations in an international space program venture for the benefit of all. While the Constitution encourages the advancement of the arts and sciences, we need to turn much of it over to private sector donations and funding, and provide incentives by deregulating much of what is holding science and technology back.
HEALTH CARE … Talked about quite a bit, and the so-called ObamaCare not only isn't going to work but will be the biggest spending boondoggle in American history – we just didn't pay attention to those nations who have already put it in place. It is a fact when someone is under such a program, they abuse the system by showing up at clinics and hospitals for every ache and pain, boosting the cost still higher. The cost of medicine itself has become expensive, partly due to mandate by government and the ridiculous TORT policy in our judiciary. One cannot open a Medical Savings Account if one is not already insured by a health care insurance entity – What's with that? What is the sense of putting money into a Medical Savings Account if the insurance company is eating away your paycheck. Think of all the insurance payments you need to make and then add them up – on the average they are higher than your mortgage and car payment combined. There is home insurance, life insurance, home liability insurance, and health care insurance that only pays 80% of the cost of a hospital visit who charges $500 for just walking into the emergency room (true story) without being attended to, and then the costs start escalating. For one emergency room visit, I was charged $2,000! I was only there for two hours at the most. I am definitely in the wrong business. First thing I would do is repeal ObamaCare and ensure it never rears its ugly head again, then remove all the costly offices, departments and agency that goes with it from government. Those employed in those departments will have to either transfer to another opening in another government agency, or do what everyone else does – put a resume together and start looking for employment. With the FairTax in place and other economical incentives (no more corporate “welfare”) – they should find another job quickly enough. Between 40% and 47% of American employment is in some form of government office, agency or department. That is Big Government, not a limited government – and it is costly and inefficient as its scope enlarges.
ELECTION PROCESS … Requires a serious reformation: (1) A private citizen or member of military must undergo a security background check if their job requires access to sensitive information or security positions; yet candidates for public office in the Congress and White House are not required to do so. Why? That must change, along with campaign financing and rules about donations. Violators must be prosecuted and removed from eligibility to run for office. We need oversight in this area, badly. Hillary Clinton's staff was caught – nothing was done, as well as other candidates for public office. Obama's funding was found to be coming from known affiliates of Islamic fascism, but the check was immediately returned. A campaign office has no control as to who tries to buy votes, but they can do what is right when received. The two-party system was designed to coincide with the Electoral College process via the Constitution. That process must be examined carefully. In addition, the media must have rights of the 1^st Amendment; however, they do not have the right to refuse the coverage of any candidate outside of the two-party system or determined to have a small percentage in poll numbers. How can a candidate get the public to notice him/her if they are blocked out by the media? Another problem needing resolution.

TheAmerican people who expect government reform must first reformthemselves, a step toward reforming our society in general. Theprimary election is important and needs to be taken more seriously.It is the candidates that is supposed to be campaigning and gettingsupport of the people to fit the need of the issues at hand withdesire to solve issues and abide by the Constitution they must swearallegiance to and protect when beginning their term in office. Termlimits are definitely in order and the removal of retirement benefitsfrom public office elected officials as well. No one should receiveretirement benefits after serving only four to eight years – nameone employer that could possible do that? And stay in business. Weneed to upgrade our educational standards, especially in the area ofscience and mathematics. We need to focus upon academic curriculum,and if budget cuts are required, take it from the sports departmentfirst – while the ancient Greeks aptly proved that a sound body isa sound mind, we must not short-change our youth. Bring back teachingthe classic subjects, somethings ancient are still applicable; infact, its basic ideology was what inspired the drafting of theConstitution and putting together such a great government documentbetween it and the People. We are a republic and should remain so. Wedo not need to emulate others, but others need to emulate ouroriginal system – not what it has become. Learn from ourachievements, but also learn from our mistakes – don't repeat them,despite being in another form.

Education,and I cannot emphasize this enough, is important in ANY society inany nation, as well as family values; ironically the two intertwine.It is not the government's mission to raise OUR children, but insteadit is the duty of parents, teachers, and community to encourage thebest standards of achievement that can be presented – not, as ourgovernment thinks, money can buy. We need to encourage and stressupon our youth that education is NOT boring or a waste of time(although some teachers make it seem so). Unions do not belong inpublic schools that are operated by government; yet we must also payteachers according to their abilities and background education;rewards for their untiring efforts to educate our youth and createbetter citizens. On the other hand, it is not the teacher's job orany educational administrator, to raise your child – it is the jobof parents. There are too many singular “parent” out there. It isbecause that government and then society, has reduced the respect andthe responsibility that comes with marriage and raising children.Citizens must make themselves responsible for their actions, but atthe same time, government must allow citizens freedom of choice.Education is also a program of guidance, but it is not a means forgovernment to instill their ideology upon our youth and sociallyengineer them, as they do the adults in their “entitlement”programs.

Americansand the United States did not become “great” by depending uponothers or our government – they were resourceful, incentive knowingthey could achieve goals if they were educated, innovative, anddiligent. Imagine if the pioneers were “entitled” to governmentprograms, instead of forging out on their own. Government policieshave caused more misery than relief over the course of our historyand the history of other governments in other nations.

Itis a fact of life, in touch with reality, and not pipe dreams of aneloquently speaking politician who makes promises he/she cannot keepor never intends to keep when achieving the power they seek. Tyrantsis what the American revolutionists fought against. Tyrants is whatAmerican patriots would not let them have their way. Tyrants inspiredThomas Jefferson and others to create a republic like no otherrepublic ever before in human history. The idea may have come fromancient classical philosophy and forms of democracy as well asrepublics, but they pretty much perfected it. Yet, we still allow ourelected officials to circumvent, our judiciary system to legislatefrom the bench, and allow our national leadership to urinate on ourbacks, believing them when they say it is raining.

Americais still a wonderful place, a great place; but We the People mustensure it remains great and reform it and ourselves.

Supplyand demand governs prices, not government. It is the way of thebusiness world, so if we want to improve the economy and make pricesmore affordable do we side with government intrusion and BigGovernment policies, or revert to Jefferson's republic which makesthe Constitution and the rights/liberties of the People, By the People and For the People the priority over all, especially foreignnational interests OR stand up and say we have had enough and demandaction or the politicians can find another career.

Votingand education is also intertwined,, it is why Mr. Jefferson stressedupon education for all Americans to the highest possible degree.Educated people, those with knowledge of the Jeffersonian republicsystem and its laws, can make decisions and not be swayed bysmooth-talking politicians and can choose to ignore TV ads thatmerely put down the other candidate instead of addressing what theyare bringing to the table – those citizens who vote responsiblythrough research of candidate's values, character, and pastperformance. Out of 57 nations, we were, in 2006, 35^thplace. I haven't researched it, but I doubt if we have moved up theline very far.

Weneed to not enforce “NoChild Left Behind”– citizens should be afforded the opportunity to opt out of theridiculous program that doesn't work. Government is misinformed whenthey think that putting more funds into a bad system will make itbetter – it is just more funds to be wasted.

Putthe FairTax flat tax system in place – and repeal any tax that isabove the national consumption tax. Tobacco, alcohol, and obesityincentives (heavy tax on “junk” food) is not right orconstitutional. The people must decide about those legal products,not the government or the elite that runs it. Insurance companiescharge higher premiums, because of the health issues of thoseproducts, so let them provide incentive to be conservative with theuse of “junk” food, tobacco and alcoholic beverages. After all,any doctor will tell you that wine and beer in moderate consumptionis not harmful and proves to aid in a health plus, especially wine.But one can get their anti-oxidant content from simple non-alcoholicgrape juice.

Ifhome schooling and private schools are working to improve education,then get out of their way (government). If public schools don't wantto be left behind, they better emulate the competition and do whatworks, not what some political correct panel or administrative morondictates.

Standup America. Make a vow to make change. Start with your life and workyour way up. In the meantime, do your homework and use your power ofthe vote – and it IS a power, don't let anyone tell you different.

Primary Election 2012: Candidate Response to Issues

2012-01-28T12:20:00.000-06:00

MITTROMNEY vs NEWT GINGRICH vs RONPAUL

PrimaryElection 2012

The following is brief, bullet presentation of Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich, specifically a list for each of what they did while holdingan office in government and what they have stated during campaign forprimary election. It goes beyond the campaign rhetoric of this personsaid this and this person said that and this person didn't choose orany issues concerning ethical material, such as Newt's congressionalhearing that determined whether or not he was guilty of usinglobbying influence illegally or his affair-then-marriage to whom Newtis married to now and his leaving his first wife when she wasundergoing cancer treatments.

It is about what“We the People” should be concerned about when choosing acandidate, and that means in any election whether it be the localcounty board, mayoral office, state offices, or the federalgovernment elected offices. President Obama's record will be examinedin a separate article; for now I am focusing upon the primarycandidates that will determine who will run against BHObama. I have only included here the top three candidates ofthe GOP primary election. {RasmussenPoll results}

ABORTION

MITT ROMNEY – As Governor of Massachusetts his liberal views, despite belonging to the GOP, was pro-choice in regards to abortion; yet he vetoed the embryonic cell bill and worked with the Massachusetts Citizens for Life entity. Since elected as governor, he has been consistent when it comes to the subject of government sanctioned and taxpayer financed abortion. States shouldn't ban contraception, and no state wants to; abortion decision should recognize two lives involved.
NEWT GINGRICH – Running for office in a pro-life district, Newt lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research. In his campaign his position was to stop forcing pro-choice morality on religious organizations; immediately cease public funding for abortion providers; impeach judges who won't abide by Constitution as written; most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion.
RON PAUL – More laws don't solve problems on abortion; efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies; deregulate the adoption market; Abortion laws should be a state-level choice; Abortion causes inconsistent moral basis for value of life; day-after pill allows individual moral choice; Abortion is murder; Roe v. Wade was harmful to the Constitution; Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement; protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty; Get the federal government out of abortion decision; Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench; No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion; Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized.

ILLEGALIMMIGRATION

MITT ROMNEY – Opposes amnesty for illegals in any form or manner, which means he was against the amnesty plan of GW Bush, and remains in that position. He has stated that America must secure its borders and at the same time send those who are here illegally back to the south and ensure they cannot return. Romney supports “E-Verify” and a completed fence on the our southern border. As governor he promoted English programs for immigrants (legal ones) and signed an agreement with the federal government that allowed state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, as as opposing any efforts to give illegal immigrants any tuition and other benefits as well as being issued driver's licenses. Romney also offered a green card to any immigrant here on a student visa who received a diploma/degree in math or science via university or college. [Some valid points, but his record doesn't match his campaign rhetoric].
NEWT GINGRICH – Supported the policy of importing “slave labor” from Mexico under a “guest worker” program and wants to create government “citizen review boards” to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis to illegal aliens – all at once. Secure the border, make it easier to deport felons, create a guest worker program in the private sector to give employers a way to check residency. Need to find a pathway to legal status, but not citizenship, for illegals who have been in the US a long time. [Simply put, this is an AMNESTY in so many words, something that true conservatives are against. It is a bad proposal during a time when unemployment is high and national security is at jeopardy because of people arriving in America without documentation, being checked for criminal background and medical examination to determine if they are bringing highly contagious communicable diseases.]
RON PAUL – Secure the border and enforce existing laws. Opposes any amnesty for illegals already in the country. Opposes giving automatic citizenship to children born in the US to illegal immigrants. [Sounds harsh to bed wetters; but it is right on and the key problem being addressed that the federal government has not enforced its own laws and turned their heads for far too long. Reagan administration tried amnesty and it only increased the amount of illegal immigrants crossing border because it provided an incentive that if they could stay long enough, they would receive amnesty and a free ride to citizenship; while others (legal immigrants) must go through due process. The quota per year for legal immigration is sensible and based upon unemployment rate in US; as well as providing a way to screen immigrants for criminal background and medical issues that could bring epidemic type diseases to the United States. It would also reduce the crime rate involved with poor immigrants who join gangs and reduce the chance of the Latin-American nation drug cartels setting up business in the US.] Incentives like benefits create illegal alien problem; Data banks for illegal aliens keep track of us too; Pay attention to US borders, not international borders; Let churches provide services for immigrants, not state; Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk; Sending 12 million illegal home won't and shouldn't happen; If economy were good, there'd be no immigration problem; Amend Constitution to remove aliens' birthright citizenship; Those who attack bilingualism are jealous and inferior; No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals; Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state; No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important; We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more; Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president; End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants; [voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border; Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project; Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment; Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules; Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers (what about unemployment?); sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations.]

ENTITLEMENTPROGRAM REFORM

MITT ROMNEY – He has said that gradually raising the retirement age by a year or two and reducing inflation on benefits for wealthy Americans would help make social security more solvent. He also proposes a plan similar to Rep. Paul Ryan on Medicare, saying older Americans should get subsides to buy private insurance, but it should be optional. [Raising the retirement age still further will cause a problem already in place because of the government raising retirement age from 65 to 70 – after 50, finding a job becomes increasingly difficult, if one is forced to leave a job for whatever reason. Mr. Romney, like too many politicians is not in tune with what is happening in “real” America, the day-to-day life of citizens on “Main Street”.]
NEWT GINGRICH – Change Social Security for workers under 30; give them a personal account that builds through their career and which they're required to contribute towards. Government safety net would be needed for small amount of people. Medicare costs are tied to health care costs. Bring in more choice to the system and costs will come down. [This plan has been presented before and makes sense; however, the fact that Congress has been stealing funds from the Social Security “Trust” Fund is the key problem with the program. Congress needs to ensure that Social Security funds are only used for what Americans have paid for all their lives. Politicians have blamed it on the “baby boomer” generation, which is false. It is because both political parties have been stealing from it to pay other debts and pork spending.
RON PAUL – There's no constitutional authority for entitlements, but it's a tricky political argument to do away with them. The system is broke, and the sooner they can be whittled away through legislation, the better. [Ron Paul is correct in that there isn't any authority statement in the Constitution except that government must support the welfare of the People. This, of course, was not meant in a literal sense. There is nothing wrong with government providing a “hand up” not a “hand out” when it comes to the welfare of the People, when the chips are down for reasons like unemployment and/or inability to work due to illness or disease, et cetera. Since the Social Security is in place, then it must be reformed in the manner in which Newt Gingrich has suggested. After all, Social Security and Medicare are paid by premiums taken from everyone's payroll check. Social Security and Medicare payments were not meant to be “taxes” – but premium payments on a retirement plan and funding assistance on expenses incurred at retirement age of 65 or less under certain special circumstances, like disability. Both programs have suffered from graft and mismanagement.]

JOBS

MITT ROMNEY – Focus on making an environment to create jobs and let businesses grow. Make employer tax rates and regulations more competitive; make trade policies work for America.
NEWT GINGRICH – Proposes broad changes in the tax code to make it easier for businesses to grow. Reduce regulations and create a tax environment where companies know what the future will look like. Uncertainty among employers discourages job growth.
RON PAUL – Excessive spending, artificial credit and market manipulation wrecked the economy. Government can start to repair things by getting out of the way. Eliminate all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations facing businesses. Reform monetary system to stop the dollar from further depreciation.

HOMELANDSECURITY

MITT ROMNEY – America needs a strong presence around the world to protect our interests. Here at home, focus needs to be on securing the border. Plan includes deploying thousands of national guard members to the border and increasing aerial surveillance. [Nothing mentioned about completing the wall between US and Mexico, approved by Congress and signed by GW Bush.]
NEWT GINGRICH – Radical Islam is a far broader challenge than many want to admit. It's going to take more than boots on the ground. It's going to require rethinking foreign policy and ho America treats radical terrorists. [Newt voted for the Patriot Act, which is a danger to the liberties of American citizens in the name of security.]
RON PAUL – Nation-building overseas is draining the morale of troops. Focus needs to be securing the US border from foreign threats. Will work to make sure intelligent community is focused on real threats and not casting wide nets as approved under the Patriot Act. [Mass invasion of a people, sanctioned by a government (Mexico) is technically an act of war. Building a proper and secure wall on the southern border and the Border Patrol backed up by US military brought back from locations overseas where troop withdrawal has been initiated would be a good idea presently. However, we must have troops stationed strategically at bases in regions where the ability to quickly react to aggression is essential, such as Australia for the Pacific, South Korea for Asia, and NATO in the Mediterranean. Contrary to the rhetoric of politicians, 86% of the US military strength remains on bases within the United States and its territories. Military spending, despite the initial view of its cost, is only 7% of the budget of the US government. The highest percentage of costs is presently in domestic entitlements. Cutting foreign aid and funds without any anticipation of being paid back is what needs to be done. America has no business paying for domestic programs of other nations. Loans can be made if the interest is fair and there is a chance it will be payed back. Cutting out the US contributions to the United Nations would also be appropriate. The United Nations has become too aggressive toward a “New World Order” making itself a world government whose leadership are not elected by the People or are not leaders of any nation.]

HEALTHCARE

MITT ROMNEY – Return healthcare to states, under the 10^th Amendment; No federal individual mandate; but state mandate OK; ObamaCare waivers on Day One; repeal on Day Two; RomneyCare intended as state plan; never as a national model; In MA, we addressed only the 8% who were uninsured; Reform Medicare, but don't cancel prescription program; Health Savings Accounts give patients stake in health costs; If people of MA don't like RomneyCare, they can change it; State Constitution allows mandate, federal constitution does not; Mandating citizens to buy health insurance is conservative; Let states create their own private, market-based insurance; Removing most mandates drove down premium costs by half; Same tax treatment if people buy insurance without employers. FactCheck revealed that the Romney health care plan is identical to Obama plan.
NEWT GINGRICH – Repeal health care reform. Make the system more competitive by allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines; create a tax credit or deduction for people to buy their insurance. Expand health savings accounts; encourage plans that; I stand by what I did in Massachusetts incentivize healthy living. [It is not government's job to micro-manage personal lifestyles; however, it wouldn't hurt to use “incentive” programs, without intruding upon the freedom of personal choice. ObamaCare must go. National health insurance hasn't worked well elsewhere, why should it in US?]
RON PAUL – Any sort of regulation only hurts the free market. Overall inflation could be hitting the medical industry especially hard. Need to reform TORT law so doctors aren't practicing defensive medicine and driving up costs; Government should not protect you from yourself – no mandates; markets instead of lobbyists writing drug laws; States can mandate insurance, but it's a bad idea; Let people opt out of Medicare; Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty; Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling; Insurance companies and government make healthcare unaffordable; Transfer funds from debt and empire-building to healthcare; Socialized medicine won't work, nor managed care; Managed care is expensive and hasn't worked; Not government's role to protect people like Terri Schiavo; Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity

AFGHANISTAN

MITT ROMNEY – Argues that it was wrong to announce a timetable for withdrawal. Supported surge in Afghanistan, and believes generals should dictate what needs to be done. Also says it's time for Afghan people to take on real responsibility.
NEWT GINGRICH – Afghanistan is only part of a larger battle with radical Islam. Pulling out troops will embolden enemies. Says he would listen more to his generals on what his strategy is on the ground.
RON PAUL – Bring American troops home from Afghanistan and don't go to war again without permission of Congress. Believes the war in bankrupting the country. [Has forgotten that Congress DID give permission to attack and invade Afghanistan against the Taliban and where Osama bin Laden's headquarters was located (later in Pakistan). ]

ENERGY

MITT ROMNEY – Believes the US needs to do more with natural gas, which is in abundance on US soil. Supports more off-shore drilling and in ANWR. Clean coal and nuclear, when done safely, are good options. Believes renewable resources have a role in energy independence, but US can't rely on them alone.
NEWT GINGRICH – Supports expanding domestic energy production, including more off-shore drilling and development of oil shale in the west. Supports financing alternative energy new royalties collected from oil and gas industry. End the EPA, which he argues has created too much regulation.
RON PAUL – No restrictions on drilling; let the market figure it out. Natural gas resources are abundant and should be part of the equation. Don't try to regulate gas prices; the free market should find the right price based upon supply and demand; No nuclear waste, garbage is individual state's problems; Big oil profits okay, Big Oil subsidies are not. [Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases; Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 'global warming' pollution; Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets; Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation; Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy; Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC; Voted NO on removing oil and gas exploration subsidies; Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore; Voted YES on scheduling permits for new oil refineries; Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy; Voted NO on raising CAFE standards, incentives for alternative fuels; Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling and development in ANWR; Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. Repeal federal gas tax; No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases; tax incentives for alternate energy.

CLIMATECHANGE

MITT ROMNEY –
NEWT GINGRICH –
RON PAUL – Absurd to let global bureaucrats try to manipulate climate.

EDUCATION

History will alsogive occasion to expatiate on the advantage of civil orders andconstitutions, how men and their properties are protected by joiningin societies and establishing government; their industry encouragedand rewarded, arts invented, and life made more comfortable: Theadvantages of liberty, mischiefs of licentiousness, benefits arisingfrom good laws and a due execution of justice. Thus may the firstprinciples of sound politics be fixed in the minds of youth."--BenjaminFranklin,Proposals Relating to theEducation of Youth in Pennsylvania,1749

MITT ROMNEY – Smaller classroom size only matters to teachers' union; Teachers should be evaluated; China and India graduate more science and engineering PhDs than America; Failure to educate minorities is a civil rights issue; [Vetoed abandoning three new Massachusetts charter schools; Teachers' union has deadening impact on student achievement; School choice over fat-cat CEOs of teachers' union; [US ranked 49^th out of 57 nation standards in science, and in math the US ranked 35^th out of 57 – making an overall score in education at 15^th out of 29].
NEWT GINGRICH – College students should work and graduate with no debt; Dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education; Let parents choose public, private, parochial, or home school; More learning options available and community college-run charter schools; American high schools are obsolete; Pay kids as incentive to learn math and science; Removing the word “God” from Pledge of Allegiance assaults our identity; Replace multiculturalism with patriotic education; Introduce competition; Encourage private sector in math and science education; waive interest on student loans for math and science grad. [Supports a constitutional amendment for school prayer]
RON PAUL – Student loan program a failure and unconstitutional; Stop enforcing “No Child Left Behind” system and allow citizens to opt-out; Competition helps, but vouchers invite bureaucratic control; “No-Child-Left-Behind” hooks institution on federal funding; Evolution does not support atheism nor diminish God; School prayer is not a federal issue; remove National Education system, but not the public schools; present scientific facts that support creationism, just as evolution theory is expected to; Equal funding for abstinence from sex as there is for contraceptives and sex education.

FIREARMRIGHTS

MITT ROMNEY – Supports both 2^nd Amendment and assault weapon ban; okay to ban weapons that threaten police; Supports Brady Bill.
NEWT GINGRICH – Don't redefine Constitution with no individual right to arms.
RON PAUL – Gun-free zones don't make any difference; law-abiding citizens should be allowed to be armed and carry concealed weapons. [Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

TAXATIONand TAX REFORM

MITT ROMNEY –
NEWT GINGRICH – Death tax is direct assault on civil society. Energy taxes are taxes on people earning under $250K. Match the Chinese and have zero capital gains tax. Voted against tax increases when Reagan and Bush were president. Flat tax proposal is criticized for losing popular “tax breaks”. Tax hikes retard growth and depress revenues. Change tax policies to make US companies competitive abroad. Create tax incentives that encourage R&D. Earned Income Credit program is an invitation to fraud. Adopt a single-rate tax system. Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death taxes. Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes.
RON PAUL – Tax code is the symptom, spending is the problem. Disastrous tax code contributes to underground economy. Repeal 16^th Amendment and get rid of income tax. Spending money does not stimulate economy, reduction of taxes does. Get rid of IRS and income tax and at same time get rid of spending. The most sinister of all taxes is the inflation tax. I have never voted for a tax increase, and never will. Immediately work at phasing out the IRS. Eliminate the “death tax”. End capital gains and inheritance tax.

BUDGETAND ECONOMY

MITT ROMNEY –
NEWT GINGRICH – Don't bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – break them up. Only leadership can balance the budget. Modernizing the government would save $500 billion per year in waste. The Federal secrecy and power are anti ethical to a free society. Put people back to work to raise revenues without taxes. The Federal Reserve is a scandal. Federal government pays at least $15 billion a year to crooks. Insure banks rather than provide a bailout.
RON PAUL – We're reversing 100 years of bad policy – audit the Fed. Destroying our currency transfers wealth to the rich. Let foreign banks fail or we face a 10-year recession. Let the market determine the interest rate, instead of Fed price-fixes. Go after crony capitalism and defend real capitalism. Don't bailout banks, bailout homeowners. Auditing the feds revealed $5 trillion loaned to foreign banks. We spend $1.5 trillion on wars, start by cutting there. Wall Street is dumping its troubles onto Main Street. Great nations and empires end for financial reasons. Stimulus means more printing and devaluing the dollar. The people, not government, are supposed to run the economy. Keep government small.

Thisis the gist of the issues that candidates are and should be debatingin the primary elections. Whoever wins must be strong enough andhonest enough to American people in order to beat the Obama spinmachine and established bureaucracy, as well as his talent inpresenting himself other than who he really is. Because Obama and hisissues are more expanded, I have chosen to create an article thatsolely addresses his reelection campaign, focusing upon his record inoffice and compared to his congressional seat as a US senator.

Votesmart and do your homework, but above all – VOTE in the primaries,not just the national election.

Peninsula News: Maritime Tower and Yachts Sold

2012-01-28T01:00:00.002-06:00

The Door County Advocate announced the proposal of the Door County Maritime Museum to build an observation tower near theold city bridge and close to the historical 19^th centuryGranary building. Below is an edited image to show what it will looklike along the Sturgeon Bay Canal. The Old Granary is on theleft of it and stands 83 feet tall, while the proposed tower will be110 feet tall. Approval by city planners for its height and citycouncil seems to have been going smoothly.

Although it will be an observationtower, with an observation room shaped like a lighthouse lightingroom at the top, it blends in with the other actual lighthouses onthe Door Peninsula. At the foot there is a building that will addmore room for the Maritime Museum's lobby, gallery, exhibits, andmeetings. It will be the first of its kind on the Great Lakes. Thefollowing photo was provided by the Door County Maritime Museumand published by the Door CountyAdvocate.

Proposed Observation Tower Image Depiction, Maritime Museum photo

The design is reminiscent of thePharos Lighthouse that was one of the ancient Wonders of the World,destroyed by an earthquake, a comparative artist rendition belowshows the similarity.

Pharos - Lighthouse of Alexandria

In another story, at least 100 jobs will returnto Sturgeon Bay with the recent sale of the largest yacht ever builtin Door County.

It is a 215-foot yacht called Project Stimulus that is already underconstruction in Sturgeon Bay at Palmer Johnson famous for theirinnovative aluminum yachts that are world-classwhich have large fuel tanks for long worldcruises. Despite being constructed with aluminum, they are still customized with teak wood and luxurious interior and furnishings; as well as all the conveniences of home. Some customers live on their yachts. The top speed of the sport yacht is 30 knots. Moran Yacht and Ship has also announced the sale of a longer PJ-215 making it twoyachts sold within 60 days. The yacht has twin engines and six cabinswith room for 12 guests, including the captain.

Palmer Johnson Sport Yacht, Green Bay Gazette

Sincethe economic troubles at the end of 2008, yacht building hasdiminished. Project Stimulus is one of four yachts that are invarious stages of construction at the Palmer Johnson shipyard onFirst Street, Sturgeon Bay.

Thefull story is at the Door County Advocatewebsite.

Support Lighthouse Journal by shopping for Your Valentine at Amazon!

The Spin Continues: Reelect Obama Drive

2012-01-27T15:00:00.000-06:00

Misleading claims and falsehoods are expected to be appearing on your television monitor, whether it is from Mitt Romney's primary election smear campaign, to making BH Obama look good for reelection.
According to FactCheck -- PolitiFact:

...based on events since that initial finding, PolitiFact has updated its ruling on Obama’s promise to toughen rules against a revolving door for lobbyists, and the site now rates it as a Promise Broken.

Common Cause also released some other interesting facts that the public should be aware of, called a "scathing review" by FactCheck.

Help support Lighthouse Journal - Shop Amazon for Your Valentine - and SAVE!

Myth Blaster: Quotes from BH Obama's Books

2012-01-27T14:46:00.001-06:00

Received an email from a regular readerand email correspondent that had alleged Obama quotes.

The Myth Blaster verdict is FALSE, withfew exceptions on the list. The email is sent in variations, probablypeople along the way add more of their own making. You can get acomplete list at Truth or Fiction website.

Here are truthful quotes:

I ceased to advertise my mother'srace at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing soI was ingratiating myself to whites.

There was something about him thatmade me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe, And white – he'dsaid himself that was a problem.

It remained necessary to prove whichside you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strikeour and name names. [Obama iswrestling with his identity while a college student.]

Yes,I’d seen weakness in other men— Gramps and his disappointments,Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons forme, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whosefates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, theblack man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes Isought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois andMandela. [Dubois was a ruthlessdictator in the Caribbean and Malcolm was a racist, assassinated bysomeone of his own race -- email quote was incomplete and out of context] Mandela and Martin would seem to be the besticon for anyone to emulate.

Incomments about Muslims, here is the real quote from his book, The Audacity of Hope:

Ofcourse, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow thiseasy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab andPakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for thestories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares fromneighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in thiscountry has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances thattheir citizenship really means something, that America has learnedthe right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II,and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift inan ugly direction.

Conservatives and thoseagainst liberal-socialists and generally hypocritical politically correct crowd, complain about the way they take things outof context or just plain make things up, especially if they cannot find factual data to back them up … here we have the samething, which in my opinion is just as bad, if not worse.

When it comes tofinding and revealing the Truth and the true character of someone –we don't need to make things up to make a point, for the facts speakfor itself.

If you want to reduce such biased, untruthful, mean-spirited passing of“information” - be your own censor. If the statement or emaildoes not have a verifiable source, although this one stated it camefrom Obama's two books, than it must be followed up upon. The pointis if you are not SURE it is truth – don't be so quick to pass italong as if it were. This is the way to fight against Chain Mail, atleast that which is false and unfairly criticizing someone.

How can anyone say theyhave better character than someone else if they themselves show badcharacter in presenting false statements or accusations against thatperson?

Help fightmisinformation, folks. Don't forward something like what is mentionedabove. I didn't publish the ones that were false, wouldn't give themoron, low-life who made this up the satisfaction.

Support Lighthouse Journal by shopping at Amazon for your Valentine -- and SAVE!

State of the Union Speech Comments

2012-01-25T15:00:00.001-06:00

On Tuesday night, President Obamagave his last speech for this term in the traditional State of theUnion address, which is actually a report on what has been done andwhat the president wishes to see happen.

Chris Edwards wrote at National Review the following “job” package is full of badideas:

A temporary payroll tax cut. This is not a tax cut at all because the president would “pay for it” with tax hikes later on. And if it’s temporary, it won’t encourage businesses to hire additional workers anyway.
More federal infrastructure. When the federal government spends on infrastructure, it often misallocates the funds. The list of federal infrastructure boondoggles and cost overruns is endless — in public housing, dam-building, Corps of Engineers projects, bridges to nowhere, high-speed rail, etc. Instead, what we need is higher-quality infrastructure spending financed and built by the private sector. We need private airports, private air-traffic control, and private toll highways.
A federal infrastructure bank. Such a financial scheme would reduce transparency in federal spending, which would go directly against a key Obama promise of increased budget transparency.
Federal jobs training programs. Since the 1960s, federal jobs-training programs simply haven’t worked.
New business tax credits. New tax credits for hiring will distort business decision making and, by making the tax code more complicated, such credits would encourage more tax cheating. They would be the exact sort of tax loophole that Obama claims to hate.
Crony capitalism. When Obama talks about “government and business working side-by-side,” it sounds to me like an invitation to corruption.
Extending unemployment insurance. Such subsidies would help keep the unemployment rate high.

Rather than all this big-governmentmicromanagement, federal policymakers should pursuea large and clean corporate tax rate cut.

PresidentObama can present a good speech and he can gain enthusiasm from hisaudience; however, talking about it and doing it are two differentsides of the coin.

As Mr.Edwards wrote: ...”I'll believe that when I see it.”

Howopportune for Mr. Obama to come up with ideas that should havealready been implemented during the last three years; and how ironicthat in the election year he is talking about working togetherbetween political party and the Congress with the White House. LikeMitt Romney,it seems he will say anything to remain in office or be elected for asecond term.

American Politics: Part 3 - Early Republic and Its Political Establishment

2012-01-24T18:02:00.000-06:00

After the establishment of a new nation, the task of establishing a democratic form of a republic was taken in hand by those who we have come to be known as the “Founders”. During that period and in the year of 1787, papers of discussion and planning were published. Henry Cabot Lodge, in The Federalist, wrote in New York in 1888 commentary and a compilation of those papers, which has come to be known as the Federalist Papers. …

Between October 1787 and August 1788, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote a series of essays that appeared in various New York newspapers under the pseudonym “Publius.” The Federalist, as the combined essays are called, was written to combat anti-federalism. Hoping to persuade the public of the necessity for the Constitution. Publius gave excellent arguments for adopting it and discarding the Articles[i]. The Federalist stresses the urgent need for an adequate central government and the ease with which the republican form of government would be adopted to the large expanse of territory and widely divergent interests found in the United States. It was immediately recognized as the most powerful defense of the new Constitution and hailed as a classic in constitutional theory. Jefferson called The Federalist “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” Of the eighty-five essays, John Jay definitely wrote five, Madison twenty-six, and Hamilton fifty-one. The authorship of the other three is in doubt. [ii]

Alexander Hamilton writes in The Federalist No. 1 …

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the offices they hold under the state establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government. …
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. … I am clearly of the opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. …
I propose in a series of papers, to discuss the following particulars: the utility of the Union to your political prosperity; the insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve the Union; the necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed; to the attainment of this object; the conformity of the proposed Constitution to be true principles of republican government; its analogy to your own state constitution; and, lastly, the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property. …

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10, in which he discusses the aspects of government officials and how they legislate and who is to be the judges, et cetera.[iii] –

The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be unwarrantable partiality to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. …
There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. …
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because of imparts to fire its destructive agency. …
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connections subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other, and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. …
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment of different leaders ambitiously contending for preeminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them much more disposed to vex for their common good. … The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. … With equal, nay, with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? … Justice should hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.[iv]
Shall domestic manufacturers be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufacturers?[v] These are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominate party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling[vi] with which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. …
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. … To secure the public good of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. …
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. …
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. …
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. …
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, he representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionately greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice. … By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect: the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and the particular to the state legislatures.[vii] …
In the extent, and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

James Madison writes in the Federalist No. 14 …

We have seen the necessity of the Union, as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, s the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for these military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the Old World, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own. …

Today there are those who complain how long it has taken for the Iraqi government leadership to take to create its constitution; but not realize the length of time it took to draft, assemble and finally ratify the Articles of Confederation and into what we know as the Constitution of the United States today. The document not only had to survive time and circumstance, but it had to be agreed upon by all states of the new Union. Too often today our legislators hurry bills through for passing without really taking the proper time for consideration and the need to examine its short- and long-term impact. And, in other circumstances where a proposed legislation has been carefully reviewed and put through the appropriate committees, it is purposefully left to languish in committee for one reason or another – and most certainly not because the bill is not worth voting upon. A good example of this is the Fair Tax Act, where the present income tax system would be dissolved and replaced with a flat tax collected from sales (new purchases only) and services rendered. It has been lauded by leading economists as a system that would be good for government, the people and business. It would eliminate costly paperwork, limit the government by making the IRS a small auditing agency of the government (and taking away the agency’s dangerous power), and from the money not spent by employers on an unfair, intrusive and expensive tax system to be able to expand the health care system and other employee benefits as well as more money for diversification and investment for business growth. And with a limit on the flat percentage rate of tax and requirement of a two-thirds majority vote to increase that rate or add to the tax base, it is clearly better than the present system. However, there are those politicians and political entities, as well as private interests (such as H&R Block) that have and are lobbying for it not to ever reach the floor for a vote. While the present number of congressional members in favor of the bill and have endorsed it has increased, there are still too many representatives and senators who have chosen to ignore it and hope it will fade away. Meanwhile they obstinately continue to try to pass some form of amnesty concerning illegal immigrants and provide these non-citizen lawbreakers with benefits that should only be afforded to citizens of the United States. But I digress …

Drafting of the Constitution took place in Philadelphia, where the central government was established and the Congress met to perform government business. The nation’s capitol city now in the District of Columbia had not been designed or constructed yet. The draft was the first step in producing a document in order to create “a more perfect Union”, protect the rights of all citizens, to establish regulations concerning the powers of each of the established branches of government, as well as term limits and other important details. Alexander Hamilton noted in his Federalist No. 84 that the Constitution was hollow without a list or a bill of rights that guaranteed that which they had fought so hard to achieve under English rule and later when the Patriots decided and acted during the American Revolution.

The Constitution drafted had now to undergo the process of being ratified by all the states within the Union, a nation called the United States. George Washington wrote, in a letter to Bushrod Washington on November 10^th 1787:

The warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise therefrom, the remedy must come hereafter, for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a Constitutional door open it. I think the people (for it is with them to judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decided with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary as ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue than those who will come after us.

The Annals of America (Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vols 1-21 plus Introduction book)The proceedings of the Convention were not open to the public; however the arguments that were pursued in its drafting appeared in print, such as the aforementioned Federalist Papers. Each of the statesmen would seek to acquaint the public with their personal interpretations and ideas and this was made possible by the newspaper media.

During the ratification process, this debate began to accelerate and the major criticism announced was that the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights that assured individuals protection under law – protection from the very government for which the statesmen had and were establishing. The gist of that argument also concerned central government and the fear and distrust of that government becoming like that which they had severed themselves from. The Constitution could not be approved until nine of the 13 states approved/ratified it.

The Annals of America, Volume 3, The Ratification Debate, p. 239-246 …

…This sentiment was strongest in New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, where state leaders, directing a unified opposition, were intent on protecting the advantage that strong, independent state governments and larger populations gave them.Delaware became the first state to ratify in December 1787, voting unanimous approval, Pennsylvania followed almost immediately, but it was not until June 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, that the necessary majority was achieved. By the end of July, New York and Virginia added their essential support to the new government, and the process of organization began. The remaining two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not join the union until after Washington’s inauguration.
In the Virginia convention the absence of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was particularly worrisome since these guarantees had already been incorporated into the state constitution. Several of the Virginia delegates at the Constitutional Convention had refused to approve the draft without a Bill of Rights. This absence, combined with a suspicion of central authority, formed the basis of the opposition to ratification articulated by George Mason and Patrick Henry. James Madison, a principal author of the Constitution, was the chief advocate for ratification, and his success in converting Edmund Randolph to the federalist position was the key development insuring passage. As a compromise, a call for the first Congress to pass a Bill of Rights accompanied Virginia’s ratification.

James Iredell publicly announced the objections during the Convention of 1787, a delegate from North Carolina:

Objection: There is no declaration of rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the separate states are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states.

Just as Alexander Hamilton and others wrote the Federalist Papers, a series of anti-Federalist letters, also written under a pseudonym (Brutus) and appeared in the New York Journal and Weekly Register during the winter of 1787 through 1788. The Brutus rebuttals saw that the national government would have full power over the states, particularly the judiciary branch. The following is excerpted from the New York Journal and Weekly Register, dated January 11^th, 1788 entitled Brutus No. 11 [viii] …

Much has been said and written down the subject of this new system, on both sides, but I have not met with any writer who has discussed the judicial powers with any degree of accuracy. And yet it is obvious that we can form but very imperfect ideas of the manner in which this government will work or the effect it will have in changing the internal police and mode of distributing justice at present subsisting in the respective states without a thorough investigation of the powers of the judiciary and of the manner in which they will operate. This government is a complete system, not only for making but executing laws. And the courts of law which will be constituted by it are not only to decide upon the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it but by officers subordinate to them to execute all their decisions. … It is, moreover, of great importance to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those who are to be vested with it are to be placed in a situation altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications. The only causes for which they can be displaced are conviction of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. …
That we may be enabled to form a just opinion on this subject, I shall, in considering it, (1) examine the nature and extent of the judicial powers; and (2) inquire whether the courts who are to exercise them are so constituted as to afford reasonable ground of confidence that they will exercise them for the general good. …
Though I am not competent to give a perfect explanation of the powers granted to this department of the government, I shall yet attempt to trace some of the leading features of it, from which I presume it will appear that they will operate to a total subversion of the state judiciaries, if not to the legislative authority of the states. …
Every adjudication of the Supreme Court on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers will that of the latter be restricted.
That the judicial power of the United States will lean strongly in favor of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the Constitution as will favor an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations. …
This Constitution gives sufficient color for adopting an equitable construction if we consider the great end and design it professedly has in view. There appears from its Preamble to be, “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.” …
This power in the judicial will enable them to mold the government into almost any shape they please.

As you can see great debates and great changes occurred during the period from 1770s to 1830s. The government transformed, but so did the American society. At best, this period can be described as the upward climb to become the industrial nation and world leader, even as the Civil War approached. After the 1830s, the political parties began to shape itself and form a part of the instituted government and its legal system. The Republicans chose their political leader to be Thomas Jefferson, and during the summer of 1800 a political campaign ensued. It did not resemble even closely the type of campaigning that would evolve later in American history, but nevertheless a presidential campaign. In Randolph, III, pp. 444-446, a letter written by Thomas Jefferson on August 13^th, 1800 proclaimed his political position and acceptance to be considered as the third President of the United States …

I received with great pleasure your favor of June 4, and am much comforted by the appearance of a change of opinion in your state; for though we may obtain, and I believe shall obtain, and I believe shall obtain, a majority in the legislation of the United States, attached to the preservation of the federal Constitution, according to its obvious principles and those on which it was known to be received, attached equally to the preservation to the states of those rights unquestionably remaining with them; friends to the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trail by jury, and to economical government; opposed to standing armies, paper systems, war, and all connection, other than commerce, with any foreign nation; in short, a majority firm in all those principles which we have espoused, and the Federalists have opposed uniformly, still, should the whole body of New England continue to opposition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. …
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. …
You have seen the practices by which the public servants have been able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, delusions by which they have varnished it for the eye of their constituents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office building, and office hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the general government!
The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very unexpensive one – a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.

Thomas Jefferson promoted a simple, inexpensive government, yet efficient. Upon Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration on March 4^th, 1801, the city of Washington in the District of Columbia had been built and he was the first president to reside there. He delivered his Inaugural Address in the Senate chamber, which was the only part of the Capitol that had been completed. Along with the Senators there was a portion of federal judges and members of the House of Representatives – as much as the chamber could accommodate. Next to President Jefferson stood his Vice President, Aaron Burr and on his other side stood Chief Justice Marshall, who was a political enemy of Jefferson, appointed by his predecessor.

Thomas Jefferson had spent eight years before the day of his Inauguration in opposition to the Federalists and now was the head of the new Republican administration. His speech reflected that he wanted unification and not political division in handling governmental affairs. He hoped to unite the Federalist and the Republic political faction. In his address, he stated which you will probably never hear from today’s elected officials …

I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.

Politics had evolved through the international crisis taking place of which Thomas Jefferson had tried to refrain from participating from the 1760s to around 1815. America set about putting together the infrastructure of its government and its system, expanding through settlers and immigrants arriving that would increase the populace in territories and make new ones. Market capitalism visibly grew after 1815 and technological inventions began to change the world into an industry – the cotton gin, the steamboat, the railroad, the telegraph, the reaper, and the sewing machine were examples of invention that would change the life and the manner of society forever.

But as far as the economic transformation that coincided with the political evolution there wasn’t a simple reason or cause for its evolvement. The major economic interests – slavery, land and agriculture, commerce and industry all required political representation. But then so did social groups that included those that were founded upon religion. An American nationalist Albert Gallatin described the days after 1815 (the final war against the British) –

The people have now more general objects of attachment with which their pride and political opinions are connected. They are more Americans; they feel and act more like a nation.

American nationalism was born, yet Americans still retained part of its European heritage, despite the fact that Europe still retained much of its monarchial and aristocratic institutions of the Old World. Historians say that this was due to the failed revolutions of 1830 and 1848 that could have spread Democracy in Europe as it had in America. No major European country became a republic until France did in 1871.[ix]

Vienna workingmen demonstrated in the 1890s for voting rights that in America were half a century old.[x]

The only close comparison to the American politic factions were the Whigs and Tories of Victorian England in the 19^th century; and in America the politic was expanding, just as the nation physically was across the part of the North American continent that constituted the United States of America.

An electoral system had been established and the popular culture was moving into a wider democratic political posture. Jeffersonian Republicans tried to hurry the process of being an immigrant to the ballot box before they had even completed the required rites of immigration.[xi] New York Federalists looked for the removal of voting restrictions on free blacks of New York, many of whom were servants of the Federalists who sought their vote. Constitutional conventions of revision in New York in 1821 and Virginia in 1829 removed much of the restraints concerning officeholding; and along with this came an increase in the number of public offices. Sheriffs, coroners, district attorneys, city recorders, county clerks, militia offices, road surveyors, inspectors, public notaries, tax assessors, fence watchers, and election officials were now part of the growing political entity of America. By the 1850s, all state senators and governors were publicly elected. By 1828 voters directly chose presidential electors in every state but South Carolina.

In the beginning, presidential candidates were chosen by party caucuses of congressmen, and state and local candidates by state legislators. The first formal state nominating convention was held in Pennsylvania in 1817. And in 1831 the Anti-Masonic party held the first nominating convention for a presidential candidate. What was once thought to be only for the elite in politics and government in general was now part of the public politics. Along with this growth and movement arose new townships, counties, and even states; as well as relocation of county seats and state capitals. State capitals were generally situated in the geographical center of the state for obvious reasons. All this structural change included the change in political culture.

While George Washington was not ashamed of his cultural elite birth and family heritage, later politicians were most popular by claiming they were among the common folks, many growing up in poverty at one level or another. Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun are examples of this frontier background that appealed to the common voter.

Even the political language began to change. Instead of colonial-type proclamations and newspaper essays, politicians began more oratory and verbal discourse – the political soapbox was born. No more newspaper essays signed under pseudonym of “Publius”. Famous among the debates of the time was the Lincoln-Douglas debate. Lincoln held the votes by the people because of his self-educated background and simple family heritage. The people felt he could relate to the circumstance of every day folks. And he did.

However, public officials of the early Republic continued the language of the 18^th century, like junto, faction, clique, cabal, interest and so on; while other language of republicanism continued to be heard: liberty, independence, representative, Republic, federal, and union.

It is at this time that when the American political language began to change, evolve, from the Old Republic, Federalist Noah Webster created the American Dictionary of the English Language that was produced to separate American English from “Mother” English within a certain form.

Americans, however, still remembered fresh in their minds the words that introduced the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Thomas Jefferson was a man who flexed with the times and he favored the “usage” of words over the “grammar”. He said:

The new circumstances under which we are placed call for new words, new phrases, and for the transfer of old words and new objects.

James Madison agreed:

New ideas, such as presented by our novel and unique political system, must be expressed either by new words, or by old words with new definitions.

This new vocabulary was taken from everyday public life – from the farms to the local racetrack, and it was politics that chiefly made this come about. People were involved with politics from the local pub to the elite social clubs in the big cities. And this was OK. [xii]

And with all of this pageantry and social change came the change in social character and corruption. In the beginning of the nation, corruption was an identifier of the old regime of British rule, but now with the increase of the number of offices and the size of government, so did the elements of corruption. [xiii] The Jackson administration showed a new element of corruption that became known as the “spoils system”. It consisted of distributed payoffs within the democratic political entity. The previous republican system of the virtuous leaders that formed the new government and safeguarded it for the people, were now relying on the wisdom and the power of the vote by the people. The old school, well-educated politicians found the whole affair “distasteful”. Indeed it represented the less admirable qualities of American public life. Politics began to form the use of hyperbole and demagoguery.

But along with this came the public stimulating election parades, barbecues, and town-hall meetings that became part of the social atmosphere. But the American public were involved, whether ethically or in corruption. Candidates began to receive nicknames: Old Hickory, Old Tippecanoe, Old Rough and Ready, and so on. This seemed make the political candidates more human and down to their social level. Towns and counties were being named after those that formed the nation and the events that took place in its formation – Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Independence, Hope, Freedom, Harmony, et cetera.

Alexis de Tocqueville, when he came to visit America in the early 1830s found a political system that was now run by professional politicians, instead of self-made, planter, farmer, lawyer statesmen that made up the Founders. Tocqueville would write from the prospective of a European visitor about the aspects of political and social life in America – which fascinated him. He writes later:

To take a hand in the regulation of society and to discuss it is the American’s biggest concern and, so to speak, the only pleasure an American knows.

Americans didn’t just discuss politics; it was part of social culture during this period. Today, many people don’t even want to discuss it and if they do it is limited, it seems at times because of their limited knowledge. You would think they would be interested in something that concerns their everyday lives. It concerns them because the people in Washington who were elected are legislating constantly – sometimes legislating your liberties away as often and as quickly as possible. Sometimes it is done with the foundation of a good purpose, but never looking at the long term. They only know that legislation in certain aspects will make the special interest groups or a certain ethnic group happy and thus ensure that they remain in office.

During this period of political history the third party appeared in the form of the Anti-Masons, and then quickly disappeared as in the case of third political parties thereafter. The original founders had Masonic background and in politics it became a quasi-religious affiliation – Washington, Franklin, Jackson and by the 1820s a majority of New York’s office holders. The Anti-Masonry party was the first prime subject oriented political party in that it served or its political platform was of one purpose. When the party dissolved in the 1830s, the members melded into the Whig party – one of the two main accepted parties. There is argument today whether or not it is good or bad for America only functionally having two political parties, but the fact remains that both factions try to dispel third parties from gaining enough popularity to get strong enough to survive the Democratic and Republican parties that still remain, despite its changes in name over the decades and the change in their political platform.

The result was two parties emerging in the new “regime” that was taking place – the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, the world’s first mass-based political parties.[xiv]

Meanwhile a new generation of politicians arose in the succession of President Monroe’s administration – John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina – all who claimed Republican Party identity. They all agreed on the major aspects of foreign and domestic policy, issues like the Monroe Doctrine, the initiation of a national bank (important after the economic collapse during Jackson’s administration), a protective tariff, and internal improvements required of a growing nation. Yet, Calhoun stated:

I belong to no section or particular interest.

After the War of 1812 politics became the Henry Clay’s American System, a term according to Keller was also used by Thomas Jefferson. Clay’s government called for a program of roads, canals, and tariffs protecting the cotton industry in the South and western grain and cattle in the West, as well as manufacturing in the East. Keller states:

In a sense the Monroe Doctrine and the American System added up to a second declaration of American independence from Europe. The only significant protestors – rather like the Tories and the Federalists – were a diminishing band of old-style Federalists and old-style Virginia Republicans led by John Randolph, John Taylor, Spencer Roane, and Richmond Enquirer editor Thomas Ritchie, alienated from mainstream American politics since Jefferson’s time.[xv]

The elections of 1824 and 1828 provided the foundation for the party politics of the “party-democratic regime”, just as those of 1792 and 1796 had been for republican era. Another interesting aspect of the period from 1788 to 1824 is that presidents voted for had been either vice president or secretary of state before their office as the President. And all had been part of the Founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

But soon the Federalists began to disappear and a new American political culture emerged. Most states still chose their electors through their legislatures. As I stated previously, this was the establishment of the two-party system when a single political figure dominated the public scene: Andrew Jackson of Tennessee who had been a war hero (General), Indian fighter and against the political agenda of those of the political past. Jackson won by a popular vote of 56% to 44%. Only two states remained under the old system where legislators picked the presidential electors – Delaware and South Carolina.

Andrew Jackson was a new type of candidate. His predecessors represented honor, service, public virtue and personal self-restraint; while Jackson was an honorable man who had served his country well against the invading British in the War of 1812, but he also came from common roots and often was admonished for his unpolished personality and his tendency to lose his temper in public. He was also admonished for marrying a woman who had not yet been legally divorced. He was the first American president who had been the target of assassination, and his response was to club to death the English attacker who had attempted it. He was a cut from the frontier element of society and this pleased the American voter. Henry Clay, the first candidate of the new Whig Party was his political adversary and was defeated in 1832. Later when Van Buren ran for office, the vote result demonstrated how close the votes were, which means an evenly divided constituent vote for each of the two political parties.

The Whig party was different than the Democrats in that individual candidates mattered more than political party loyalty.[xvi]

Voters themselves had changed in the nature of their politics. Policy once was held as the main issue, while it now was party and personal appeal that swayed voters.[xvii]

In 1840, the Jacksonian Democrats became the Democratic Party, instead of calling itself Republican (Democratic-Republican) that was originally done in honor of Thomas Jefferson. As Morton Keller writes:

Jacksonian class-warfare rhetoric appeals to historians in search if historical validation for a liberal-left tradition in American politics. … But Jacksonian anti-capitalism was encased in an agrarian-yeoman ideal far indeed from a social democratic state. Further muddying the ideological waters was the widespread readiness of the Democrats to temper their populist rhetoric with a healthy respect for enterprise and moneymaking. And as the case was with Jefferson when he was faced with the prospect of acquiring Louisiana, small-government principles readily co-existed with expansionist ambition. When Jackson faced Calhoun’s states’-rights nullification défi in the early 1830s, he fell back on nationalism that the Federalists would have applauded: “Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved, without union they can never be maintained.”

The Whigs, earlier form of what later would become the Republican Party, were different when it came to matters of economic and social issues. They supported the expansion of bank credits, government subsidies for internal improvements, protective tariffs, and the distribution of the proceeds of land sales to the states.[xviii]

Andrew Jackson’s 1832 reelection marked the period when he removed federal deposits from the Bank of the United States and he vetoed a congressional attempt to re-charter the Bank. Jackson viewed the Bank issue as a social problem:

A showdown between “the rich and powerful” and “the farmers, mechanics, and laborers”.

He stated that he withdrew federal deposits from the Bank in order

…to preserve the morals of the people, the freedom of the press, and the purity of the elective franchise.[xix]

The Whigs called the action against the Bank of the United States an example of

Democratic hostility to development of Jacksonian autocracy, rapidly tending towards a total change of the pure and republican character of the government and the concentration of all power in the hands of one man.” [xx]

The new-party mentality of the popular culture had emerged, and it remain so until the Civil War era, and yet would continue for at least a hundred years.

The gist of this democratic politic movement by the practice, as aforementioned, coined as the “party-run spoils system”. Morton Keller wrote in Chapter Five:

The party-democratic regime not only created a new politics but transformed government and law. The republican approach to governing in the early Republic assumed that elite rules would disinterestedly serve the public interest. In the news regime, “the democratic ideal of popular self-rule was translated into a reality of party government through the medium of yet a third concept – that of the rule of the majority.

And with that I conclude Part 3 of this essay on American politics and its evolvement from the momentous period of the colonial and revolutionary process that created a nation. The continuation of the 1840s era of politics that introduced the politics of the pre-Civil War in Part 4 and on into the period known as Reconstruction, and then into Part 6 as the modern industrial era formed which later became the technological era.

While this subject material is merely a brief description of a talking point that could cover volumes, I hope this passes on some information that explains American politics, a look to where we were, what we have become and what may result if positive changes are not made.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

The Cultural Pattern in American Politics – Robert L. Kelley
Deferential-Participant Politics: The Early Republic – Ralph Formisano
The Republic in Peril: 1812 – Roger H. Brown
The Revolution of American Conservatism – David H. Fischer
America’s Three Regimes – Morton Keller
The American Political Nation – Joel Silbey
The Myth of Class in Jacksonian America – William Gienapp
The Market Revolution in America – Richard E. Ellis
The American Language – H. L. Mencken
The Anti-Masonic Party in the United States – William P. Vaughn
The Presidential Quest: Candidates and Images in American Political Culture – M. J. Heale
The Political Culture of the American Whigs – Daniel W. Howe
The Roots of American Bureaucracy – William E. Nelson

[i] Articles of Confederation.

[ii] Annals of American History, Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 3, 1784-1796, New York/Chicago/London/Toronto/Geneva/Sydney/Tokyo/Manila/Johannesburg/Seoul, 1976.

[iii] In particular note, notice that James Madison was concerned about much of what citizens are concerned for today. He writes about the dangers of special interests, and today those arguments are applicable to what he wrote about in putting together the Constitution.

[iv] Thus today we see those “factions” in the form of the two main political entities that has evolved to what they are today and their primary mission in the eyes of citizens is the power of that political entity, sometimes more important than the well being of our nation and the people within it. These warnings, over the decades, have been ignored. Maybe it should be a requirement that every elected official or those who want to be elected be knowledgeable of the Federalist Papers and the talking points held therein.

[v] Even then, free trade versus protectionism was questioned and examined.

[vi] This is the monetary component that remained from England during the first years of the new government of America before it was changed from shilling to dollar.

[vii] Today this argument prevails as the government has evolved into the practice of interfering with states rights, and indeed this was the issue that led to the American Civil War. Today those arguments are reborn with national governance of the central government in charge of matters that should be left up to the state. For example, the matters of education and establishing and maintaining the school system; whereas local and state government are more apt to know what that localities needs are and act accordingly. The educational system should be returned back to the state government’s responsibilities and further disseminated down to the local school districts. The central, federal government should only be concerned with national standards of education to ensure that all school systems are in tune with the process of required education for youth who will be entering a career field. Certain knowledge is needed to be a well informed and educated citizen, which in turn makes a responsible voter. How can a voter possibly make a logical decision without knowledge of the structure of government and the process of politics? Civics, political history and its infrastructure of processes should be taught beginning in high school – and the basic principles of the American form of government taught before that. Knowledge is power, and the power of the people over the government must prevail, as the Founders and the arguments that ensued in the Federalist Papers clearly demonstrate.

[viii] The Annals of American History, Volume 3, p. 261-264.

[ix] Morton Keller, America’s Three Regimes, Oxford, 2007, p. 69.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] You may have thought today’s issue concerning illegal immigrants was unique and a first-time phenomenon, but the circumstance may have changed but the gist of the issue is the same.

[xii] This two-letter word was an invented Americanism that began politically and then was accepted universally and remains the icon of the roots of American “slang” and colloquial language.

[xiii] Morton Keller, Corruption in America: Continuity and Change (1978).

[xiv] Morton Keller, America’s Three Regimes, The Culture of Democratic Party Politics.

[xv] Morton Keller, America’s Three Regimes, The Culture of Democratic Party Politics, pp. 78-79.

[xvi] Something that the American voter should be exercising today, the main and possibly only way for the two parties of politic to self reform; and the difficulty of this is that because of the extreme cost of running, it is hard to find an independent that can run the gamut of the long and costly campaign for presidency.

[xvii] Once again, we relive history. If it is not party loyalty that sways the voters support, it is the pleasing demeanor, flowery words of promise often not backed up the candidate’s voting record, which too many voters ignore. And then, after the candidate attains office, the voter finds that “politics are as usual” – when in fact it is mainly because they vote for the same people or the same type of people election after election. Political parties, the two main ones that still dominate the scene must reform, but so must the voter. Knowledge is power and so is voting, but the two must interact. The voter must self educate themselves and begin to vote by investigation of voting record, public actions – and not just campaign rhetoric and dog-and-pony show demonstrations on the campaign trail. In addition, today the media and the political elite choose the candidates in the primary, and as I have heard many voters complain that the delegates have more voting power than the people. This is nothing but the return to the birth of American politics when the legislative chose the electors. Americans must stop thinking that there is nothing they can do – the political elite from both sides of the political aisle are counting on that very mood and attitude. As far as the media, they are going to have to learn the hard way that their power has been abused and will no longer be tolerated, and once again it is the American public who must make that lesson clear.

[xviii] David H. Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservatism (1965).

[xix] Richard E. Ellis, The Market Revolution in America (1996)

[xx] Joel Silbey, The American Political Nation, 1838-1893 (1991).

American Politics: Part 2 - Colonial Period to Early Republic

2012-01-24T18:00:00.000-06:00

History books and historians look at history in ages or eras. In the case of American history, for example, there is the colonial period, foundation of a New Republic, Expansionism, Age of Jackson, Wild West, the Progressive Era, et cetera. In Morton Keller’s book of political history it is divided in what he calls “regimes”[i] –

Deferential-republican, running through the colonial period and the early Republic to the 1820s
Party-democratic, from the 1830s to the 1930s
Populist-bureaucratic, from the 1930s to the present [ii]

In Keller’s introduction he correctly states:

It is widely assumed that ours is a special time in American history: of a uniquely bitter politics and disillusioned electorate; an exceptionally dysfunctional president, Congress, and bureaucracy; a highly polarized Supreme Court. Title of recent books on public affairs make the point: Dark Ages America, Politics Lost, American Theocracy, The Twilight of Democracy, Protofascism in America, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. Is this sense of special malaise accurate? That question requires an answer grounded in history.

Whether termed as “regimes”, “eras” or other methods of dissection, the American political history and its evolution is definitely divided into three parts.

To write about the beginning of American history and its politics is to begin with colonial America, which is the prelude to a revolution. That revolution was not just physical, but a revolution of ideas based upon a changing world. And once that revolution became independence it marked the beginning of a Republic. The idea of a republic goes as far back in history as Plato.

People assumed that because the colonial, revolutionary and first years of the new Republic had been successful in several ways, there was general unity in respect to the political atmosphere after the break from the Old World British imperial system. When the colonial Americans were offered the choice between continued rule without representation and a republic system, the foundation of the new state was not as clear cut as one may think. And while it is quite evident that the founders did an excellent job at producing a republic that met the qualifications they desired as separatists from Mother England, which was also not a unified stance among the populace, despite that there wasn’t any model to go by in that effort. And despite the fact they declared that

All Men are created Equal …

Slavery was still allowed to exist – but not without reservations and comment from the founders and drafters of the United States Constitution. However, it was not as if they had no reference at all to guide them in their formation of politics, government and law – they had a base to choose from the European ideology and institutional processes, whether it be against or agreement upon using it. Thus, in the period known as the Early Republic, some of the Old World political culture remained to an extent.

The major events that is known as the Revolution, Independence and Confederation of the colonies as states that comprised the government entity, the new nation was developed, the Constitution drafted and accepted (after much discussion) and culminated after the physical revolution against England and the King into an eight-year political and cultural revolution. And while the American colonies were developing and finding a niche in the scheme of things, Europe was undergoing change within itself – in religious thought, philosophical thought (often both intertwining into an enlightening discussion), as well as a sort of political revolution despite still retaining monarchy with a diluted form of a parliamentary democracy in place. The emergence of science and logic thought over superstitious and stifling religious doctrine also helped to open the doors to the enlightenment that developed. In the period prelude to the Industrial Revolution[iii] - the age of Robert Walpole, William Pitt, John Wesley, David Hume, John Sebastian Bach, Frederick the Great, Maria Theresa, Diderot Proteus, Jean Meslier, Helvétius, and Voltaire (François Marie Arouet, 1694-1778).

The triumph of philosophers melding with religious thought, science versus religious edict, and cultural and educational changes were the founding instruments of the formation from colonialism to the American republic. In France the cultural, political, religious, philosophical and educational revolution had already begun. Voltaire’s revolution was primarily aimed at the established Christian leadership and Christianity itself, or what it had become under organized leadership after the days of the Apostles wandering among the Gentiles to spread the word of their religious leader, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

Voltaire declared war against the Christian leadership, spearheading the assault against the priests, who he viewed as destroyers of nations. Voltaire concluded:

I hated priests, I hate them, I shall hate them till doomsday.

François Arouet evolved into Voltaire while imprisoned in the Bastille (1717-1718)[iv]. Voltaire also dreamed of free enterprise, social and educational reform, and he rejected nationalism and patriotism as

Emotions narrowed the conceptions of humanity and moral obligation and made it easier for kings to lead their people into war.

In effect, it also made him an anti-war activist; yet he wrote a patriotic elegy for the officers who had died for France in 1741 and blessed the army of France for their victory at Fontenoy.[v]

Lessing, Kant, Herder, Goethe, and Schiller in Germany were seeking similar reformation. Philosophy arose in terms of acceptance and popularity among the educated, as well as the spread of the French language and culture across Europe. Voltaire warned the French to

Moderate their boasting of superiority in language, literature, art and war, and reminded them of their faults, crimes and defects.[vi]

After the Seven Years’ War, under Napoleon, France began to recover from the high taxes of Louis XV and the economic problems initiated under his rule.

Pierre-Samuel du Pont wrote Physiocratie in 1768, which provided the influence for economic reform. Another fellow with a similar name, spelled “DuPont” carried the physiocratic philosophy of economics with him to America, and established what would become one of the wealthiest families in American history as well practically a “household name”. (Excuse the unintended pun).

It was men like these who helped establish the ideology of the physiocrats. Reformers paid heed to Voltaire and revolutionists to Jean-Jacques Rousseau – the rival of Voltaire.

The development of the idea of democratic republic flourished during this turbulent cultural period in Europe and the rise of socialism and communism to emerge triumphant over what Europe had come up in terms of revolution and reform.

Almost before the ink had dried on the Constitution, two political parties arose whose name and political platform would change/progress

…from Federalist to Whig to Republican, from Democratic-Republican to Democratic.[vii] … The American state was one not of bureaucrats and armies, but of parties and courts.

Law also was innovated and combined with the politics prevented the class-defined and top-down character of its European counterparts.

The main beginning arose from the concept and fulfillment of independence from England. The republican entity managed to break from British rule and create a representative republic of which the likes had never been constructed or seen before.

The democratic party defeated the secessionists, ended slavery, and survived industrialization and immigration of unique rapidity and scale. The modern populist-bureaucratic regime created a welfare state (however limited), overcame the international threats of fascism and communism, and oversaw a large-scale expansion of individual and group rights at home.[viii]

However, in order to understand this development, the reader must project their mindset into the minds of the colonists who arrived in America in the early 17^th century, as well as their descendents who founded the American republic.

Colonists brought with them to English-American colonialism time-established ideas of government. Colonization was nothing new to England who began the enterprise in the 16^th century by royal charters, which established Pennsylvania, Carolina, New Jersey, Maryland, and Georgia. And from those initial colonies arose Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and North Carolina, who also became legitimate through the royal charter. New York was established by the Dutch and by 1664 became the proprietary colony of the duke of York, which automatically became a royal colony after the duke became King James II in 1685. And there was diversity within the colonial conglomeration:

Virginia was the abode of pro-Stuart Cavaliers, Massachusetts Bay of Cromwellian Puritans … Pennsylvania set up by the Quaker William Penn, or Maryland, established by the Catholic Calvert family.

Christian religion in its evolved condition remained the basis of government and law for a lengthy period in colonial history.[ix] However, the remoteness in the New World required the populace of the New World to adapt to its new surroundings and develop in a land far removed and not just in terms of miles from Mother England.

The European colonists had a different concept of international relations in terms with the relationship with the Native Americans whom they met after landing on the shores of the North American continent.

Tribes were called “nations,” agreements were called “treaties.”

Arab Slave Traders

Yet, despite their original mindset to accept their Indian neighbors, such as in Plymouth were Indian testimony was accepted in the court, contracts between settlers and tribesmen were legal, and Indians could bring assault charges against the European settlers. Unfortunately, this coexistence deteriorated from the middle of the 17^th century and on into American history. The settlers began to dictate via regulations that governed their Indian neighbors as far as social behavior and the difference between their cultures. And the plight of the African American was more sinister because of the mass purchase of slaves from the West Indies and from Arab traders at the shores of North Africa. As time progressed the recognized English law had become evolved into what would become American law. Much of these changes, adjustments and evolving mindset had prepared the colonists to either accept or decline into a physical revolution – not just of ideas and policy. However, much of the 18^th century American politics still resembled the English court – royal governors, their councils, and the colonial assemblies (mini-Parliaments, if you will), and even the political vocabulary of English politics remained: interest, clique, junto, faction, hacks, and caucus. However, while English punishment became more severe, in America it became less severe. Self government began to emerge within the colonial governments’ policies. Men with the right to vote moved from 20% to 40% of the American population. While the royal governors were established and in place to oversee the populace, it soon became evident that the real authority was the American farmer, merchant and lawyers that developed influence and ability from their acquired education. Needless to say this caused public and personal conflict between the royal governor, as Keller provides an example at p. 22 …

Consider the sad story of Sir Danvers Osborne. Recently widowed and seriously depressed, he became governor of New York in 1753. He set out to make his fortune in the accepted style of the empire. He expected the New York assembly to give him a salary, budget, and perks sufficient to support a grandiose lifestyle appropriate to his rank and station. But Osborne ran into a stone wall of resistance. “The what am I come here for?” he plaintively asked one day. That night he hanged himself.

In the 17^th century in England, the English Puritan Revolution took place and the French Revolution followed it. The American Revolution has often been compared to these two occurrences. All three revolutions were against royal monarch power. Each of them began from formal protest to a revolt, decided by a legislative body and majority vote.

In the process of creating a constitution for the new republic the French’s efforts could be examined – and also what not to do. Rousseau stated

…no people could ever be anything but what the nature of the government made it.

John Adams believed that

The government ought to be what the people make it.

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 can be compared to the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Bill of Rights (1791). The difference was that the French declaration was produced from 2,500 political pamphlets and 60,000 statements of grievances (cahiers de doléance) before the French Declaration had been completed. The American Declaration was a manifesto that Tocqueville called

…the politics of the impossible, the theory of madness, the cult of blind audacity.

The Declaration contained no list of rights to freedom to assemble, trial jury or right to counsel, et cetera; but instead, asserted the right to America becoming a supreme and sovereign nation as an entity of people because the English ruling authority class refused to listen to colonial grievances and its insistence upon representation.

James Madison realistically accepted the fact that factionalism would be an entity of a free republic. Robespierre said

There are only two parties, the party of good intentions and the party of evil ones.

The differences between the three modern revolutions mentioned was also because of the historical figures that represented them: Cromwell, Napoleon, and Washington. If one looked at them as personal background, I guess that was the only thing they had in common. Cromwell and Napoleon had a lust for power. Napoleon was the first modern dictator. His brother had commented that Napoleon had a “strong leaning toward tyranny”. However, Napoleon had great respect for George Washington. He kept a bust of Washington on his desk, and when he died in 1799, he ordered a day of mourning in France. During Napoleon’s period of exile at St. Helena, Napoleon wrote of him in his memoirs, and wrote of himself and Washington in comparison:

If Washington had been a Frenchman at a time when France was crumbling inside and invaded from outside, I would have dared him to be himself; or, if had persisted in being himself, he would merely have been a fool … I could only be a crowned Washington. And I could become that only at a congress of kings, surrounded by sovereigns whom I had either persuaded or mastered. Then, and only then, could I have displayed Washington’s moderation, disinterestedness, and wisdom. In all reasonableness, I tried it. Can it be held against me?

It was the attitude that George Washington held in regards to power that set him above his European counterparts. Cromwell and Napoleon did not voluntarily relinquish his leadership position and power, as did Washington.

George Washington had no children, and he wrote:

I have no child for whom I could wish to make a provision – no family to build in greatness upon my country’s ruins.

Surprisingly, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were worried about George Washington and his capabilities of becoming a lifetime monarch instead of President of the United States. But Washington had his concerns when he told Lafayette in the spring of 1788, when the Constitution was hung up in political discussion among the drafters and powers of authority to ratify it:

A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America for the present generation and probably produce no small influence on the happiness of society through a long succession of ages to come.

In Washington’s first inaugural speech he stated:

…nothing less than the destiny of the republican model of government was at stake.

Italy at the time was reaching the crossroad of political reform and the 19^th century Italian revolutionary Massimo d’Azeglio stated:

We have made Italy. Now we have to make Italians.

Once again, the principle was opposite of the American revolution where the people “made itself”.

The formal gist of the American resistance of the new republic was made up of a body called the Continental Congress of 1774. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and George Washington were plantation owners turned politician. John Adams was the leader of the revolutionary aspect of the American movement, but only part time from his duties as a lawyer. Sam Adams was the only full-time revolutionary. The group was part of the movement called the “Liberty Boys”. The movement had popular support of the people of the colonies. Within the group there was diversity – Philadelphia Quaker merchants, Massachusetts farmers, Baptist religious leaders in New England, Anglicans in New York City, and small farmers in the Carolinas. And, in the beginning they were against the complete separation from British rule because they had benefited economically from British rule and were protected by the British authorities. So, the American Revolution was not just a physical endeavor against the British and their Hessian mercenaries, but a civil war amongst the colonists as well. This was especially true in the Southern colonies. And this is what made the war last as long as it did, and to date the longest war in American history precluding the Vietnam War. In Keller’s book he states that one out of every ten colonists fought directly in that war.[x]

In that background and respect, one can wonder at why the American Revolution didn’t end in social division and political bitterness as what happened in the English and French revolutions. Keller writes:

For one thing, the American revolutionaries were more effective than their European counterparts in getting rid of their adversaries. There were about a half a million Tories [xi], and some eighty thousand of them were forced to leave the colonies – about six times the proportion of supporters of the French monarchy who fled after their cause was lost.
More important, most of what John Adams called “the people of parts and spirits” joined the rebellion. The supple Ben Franklin, a strong royalist until the eve of the Revolution, quickly became one of its doughtiest champions. Merchants (except the Philadelphia Quakers), the major Virginia planters, and the ablest lawyers and public figures were early and ardent supporters first of resistance to British policy and then of independence and the willingness to fight for it if necessary.

So, why did men like Franklin, who was comfortable in seeking a place within the British Empire, the soldier-planter George Washington who once had ambitions of rising through the ranks of the British army, successful Massachusetts lawyer, who represented Boston merchants, John Adams; Alexander Hamilton who had social status, hierarchy and rank within the British system, join the other revolutionaries like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Tom Paine? Keller writes[xii]:

There is no single answer. John Adams, Jefferson, and Washington did not come to the patriot cause out of social or economic or political alienation. Instead, the imperial crisis became an open sesame to the public demonstration of what they already were: not colonials but Americans. Of the original fifty-five members of the Continental Congress, nine out of ten were native-born, most to the third or fourth generation. The only member of Congress not of American or British origins was a Swiss-born Presbyterian minister, and he opposed independence. Unlike their French counterparts, the American revolutionaries did not get caught up in the business of destroying inherited institutions and reshaping human nature.

Division of thought on the matter was not confined to America, but extended across the seas to England, where political liberals feared that the war against the American colonies would strengthen the position of

Tories against the Whigs, and the King against Parliament; one liberal the Duke of Richmond thought of moving to France to escape royal despotism.[xiii]

The Earl of Chatham approached Parliament and made a public record clearly against the forceful suppression of America and its wish for independence on November 20^th, 1777. At this time the British had suffered several defeats in the American colonial conflict and France was sending subsidies to the aid of the American colonies under the leadership of General George Washington. Addressing the House of Lords he stated:

House of Lords in Session
I rise, my lords, to declare my sentiments on this most solemn and serious subject … I cannot concur in a blind and servile address which approves, and endeavors to sanctify, the monstrous measures that have heaped disgrace and misfortune upon us – that have brought ruin to our doors. This, my lords, is a perilous and tremendous moment! It is not a time for adulation … It is now necessary to instruct the throne in the language of truth … This my lords, is our duty; it is the proper function of this noble assembly, sitting upon our honors in this House, the hereditary council of the Crown. And who is the minister – where is the minister – that has dared to suggest to the throne the contrary, unconstitutional language this day delivered from it? …
My lords, you cannot conquer America … You may swell every expense and every effort still more extravagantly; pile and accumulate every assistance you can buy or borrow; traffic and barter with every little pitiful German prince that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles …; your efforts are forever vain and impotent – doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely, for it irritates, to an incurable resentment, the minds of your enemies. … If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms – never – never – never![xiv]

Edmund Burke was another Englishman who tried to persuade Parliament from a forceful campaign against the Americans. He represented had represented the city of Bristol in Parliament from 1774 to 1780, whose majority of merchants had been against waging war against the American colonies from the beginning.[xv] In the end, when King George and the Parliament decided to withdraw troops from America and acknowledgment of the independence of the American colonies was signed it included the relinquishment of all the territories between the Alleghenies, Florida, the Mississippi, and the Great Lakes. The British people was glad it was over, but was upset about losing so much territory to the American revolutionists.

Will Durant writes of the historical entry of world history:

Will & Ariel Durant
The American Revolution gave added prestige to republican ideas. That Revolution, too, took its force from economic realities like taxation and trade, and its Declaration of Independence owed as much to English thinkers as to French; but it was noted that Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson had been molded to free thought by the philosophes. Through those American sons of the French Enlightenment, republican theories graduated into a government victorious in arms, recognized by a French King, and proceeding to establish a constitution indebted in some measure to Montesquieu.[xvi]

From the First Continental Congress of 1774 to the creation of the Constitution, as well as the creation of what would become known as the United States, twenty-five years passed.

George Washington was not initially elected by the people as we are accustomed today – he was appointed by the Congress. Washington was adamant at following the majority rule of Congress and never even hinted that he would use his military leadership to gain power over the authority of the congressional membership – even though his popularity afforded him the opportunity.

The American revolutionaries were also part of the Great Awakening of the early 18^th century, where figures like John Adams were likened to the religious revolution of Martin Luther. Samuel Adams, the fiery revolutionist could be likened to John Calvin.

Religious background was strong.

The Continental Congress refused to meet on the Sabbath, and in 1777 it ordered twenty thousand Bibles to be distributed to the army. … Congress dutifully discoursed on its duty “to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought and died”: not a call to defend (or for that matter to assault) the ramparts of Orthodoxy. Frequent references to Old Testament Israel co-existed with no less frequent references to the pagan Roman republic.

This demonstrated that the founders sense of history as well as religious foundations were intermingled.

After six years the Confederation Congress finally agreed in 1782 on the design of the Great Seal of the United States. The symbolic design included a pyramid with an eye at its apex, representing the enlightened European influence of the Masons. An eagle with olive branches in one claw and arrows in another was a symbol taken from the reign of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.

While the drafter of the Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson, it was a conglomeration of ideology of a forming American political culture. Thomas Jefferson was the prime drafter, but there was a committee made up of Jefferson (Virginia), John Adams (Massachusetts), and John Dickinson (Pennsylvania). The document’s roots came from the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, the writings of John Locke, and the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment. The preamble was indeed a declaration; however the rest of the document reads like a lawyer’s brief presented to a civil authority with a list of grievances against the King of England. As a side historical note, 26 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, a document that could have been a signed death warrant upon themselves for treason, was lawyers by trade.

Indeed, Benjamin Franklin reminded his fellow patriots that if they didn’t hang together, they would be hanged separately, in the process of seeking an independent American republic.

The new state’s constitution was written after the period of July of 1775 and its main purpose was to link together the colonies as one unified people, but the separate colonies, now each a separate state had changed their colonial charters to newly written constitutions, except for Rhode Island and Connecticut who kept their colonial charters, but removed any reference to the Crown of England.

The Continental Congress changed to the Confederation Congress after 1777 constructed its articles with structural change and the mindset of distrusting the powers to be. It was a Congress that unified the new states with a central government that controlled national coinage, the ability to finance and borrow, supplied the funds for an army and a navy, matters of foreign affairs, as well as domestic affairs concerning policies concerning the Native Americans. There wasn’t any Confederation judiciary as of yet.

The next edition covers the period concerning the Constitution, the people behind it, thoughts about the new republic. The government still had no clear political parties, although ideas and policies intertwined in the arguments of how the new republic would be constructed into the foundations of the American government. Essays and commentaries were written by the prominent founders that would become known as the Federalist Papers. Stay tuned at LP Journal as Part 3 of American Politics continues with the engagement of the historical and developmental background of our political system. Its foundations, its prescribed principals, where it has been, what is occurring now, and where it may possibly be going.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers, Carl Becker, New Haven, 1951.
An Introduction to the History of Civilization in England, Henry T. Buckle, New York, 1913.
History of the English Speaking Peoples, Winston Churchill, London, 1957.
Saints and Revolutionaries, David D. Hall, 1984.
A Freeborn People: Politics and the Nation in 17th Century England, David Underdown, 1996.
Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress, James H. Henderson, (1969).
The Creation of the American Republic, Gordon Wood, 1969.

[i] America’s Three Regimes, Introduction, p. 3.

[ii] “Present” being 2007 in terms of Keller’s book.

[iii] Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 9, Age of Voltaire, p. 45.

[iv] Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 9, Age of Voltaire, p. 17, 33, 35-36.

[v] Durant, Volume 9, p. 779.

[vi] Durant, Volume 9, p. 780.

[vii] Keller, America’s Three Regimes, p. 4.

[viii] Thomas Keller, p. 5.

[ix] Thomas Keller, Differential-Republican Regime, p. 12.

[x] Thomas Keller, Differential-Republican Regime, p. 34.

[xi] American colonists that had grievance against the way England treated them, but still remained loyal to the King of England, and thus were called “Tories”.

[xii] The Differential-Republican Regime, p. 30.

[xiii] William E. Lecky., History of England in the Eighteenth Century, London, 1887, Chapter III, p. 530.

[xiv] Houston Peterson, Treasury of the World’s Great Speeches, New York, 1954, p. 143-146.

[xv] Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 10, New York, 1967, p. 713

[xvi] Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 10, New York, “Death and the Philosophers”, p. 899.

American Politics: Part 1 - Where It's Been, Where It Could Go

2012-01-24T17:33:00.003-06:00

Political candidates who are working toward achieving the highest office of the land, the presidency, are talking about change – mostly in the camp of one particular political entity. But what “change” do they have in mind? Is it change in the way our government has been operating? Is it change in how their supported political party forms its ideologies? Or, is it just change from one political entity to another in the grab for political party majority between the two established main parties?

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement; and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

Gateway Pundit posted a story entitled Portland Protestors Call for Fragging of Military Leaders, March 22^nd 2008 …

Last year they were sh*tting on a flag. This year they’re calling for murder of military officials. Not just antiwar …

This is what your tax dollars and tuition fees pay for as the curriculum of college students. Does anyone wonder who is behind their frenzy? Who are their sponsors? Who is brainwashing our youth? During the Vietnam War major protest marches were financed by socialist and communist sponsors, some organizations here in America and others abroad. The infamous group that “Hanoi” Jane Fonda and Senator John Kerry belonged to was financed and supported by the Maoist organization – as communist as one can get and with personal interests in the victory of North Vietnam in that war. That was how he met Hanoi Jane Fonda. The propaganda campaign actually won the war for the communists, they certainly couldn't win it on the battlefield.

Little Green Footballs also covers this incident of these traitors, March 23^rd 2007 – one year before in the article A New Low for the Anti-War Movement …

The protestors in Portland, Oregon, last weekend didn’t only burn a US soldier in effigy. According to an editorial in today’s Portland Tribune, one of them also defecated on a burning US flag.

When someone defiles an American flag, they are not defiling our government – they are defiling and insulting YOU and ME. The flag is a symbol of the American people, a symbol of our national pride and out national unity - not our government.

Portland, Oregon must be a haven for traitors. This is an example of misuse of freedom of speech where people are not just against war and truly peace activists, but this specific war, generally speaking. And notice in their projection of being “peace activists” they promote violence and spew hateful rhetoric. They want sons and daughters of American citizens to commit fratricide – killing someone else’s son or daughter. Technically, mutiny and treason. [See also High Treason]

The Portland city council is fully behind this program, as reported by the Portland Tribune by Jim Redden:

The City Council has passed two resolutions opposing the war and calling for American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.

And cannot these people who “want to end the war” understand that other Americans and our troops want it to end as well? However, the troops and Americans who support them don’t want to surrender to the enemy in order to end it – they want to end it through victory against a globally dangerous fascist entity whose instrument is religious fanaticism and rhetoric of hate.

And to demonstrate that times haven’t changed in some respects in reflection of the Vietnam War protests of the late 1960s and 1970s – the Marxist World Workers Party is behind or indirect support of this anti-war movement in the United States. The communists have been trying to undermine the American form of government since the 1930s, when during the period of the world-wide Great Depression people began to swallow the propaganda of class envy among other instruments of communist propaganda. Another leftist group that is made up of women is called Code Pink – pink-clad women who protest coast to coast across America – often met by counter protestors sponsored by folks who support troops and achieving victory as a means to end the war – not surrender. FrontPage Magazine writes:

At the center of Code Pink is legendary leftist organizer Medea Benjamin, the 50-year-old mother of two widely credited as a chief organizing force behind the 1999 Seattle riots in which 50,000 protestors did millions of dollars worth of property damage in their effort to shut down meetings of the World Trade Organization. In addition to Code Pink, Benjamin’s San Francisco-based human rights organization[i] Global Exchange was the founding force for United for Peace and Justice coalition, the nexus of the anti-war protests.
The United for Peace coalition, which includes Socialist Action and the Socialist Party USA, is also led by Leslie Cagan, who has a long history of activism with the American Communist Party.[ii] …
The mindset of Benjamin and her friends can best be summed up by her description in the San Francisco Chronicle of how she felt on her first pilgrimage to Cuba in the early 1980s. Compared to life in the United States, the communist social equality of Cuba “made it seem like I died and went to heaven,” Benjamin enthused. Now it appears that Benjamin is trying to recreate it here.[iii] …
Benjamin worked as a project coordinator for Institute for Food and Development Policy (IFDP), which was widely credited with aiding the Marxist Sandinista regime while Cagan, coordinator of the National Mobilization for Justice and Peace in Central America, led marches against US aid to the contras at home that at times attracted upwards of 75,000 people. …
In the 1990s, Benjamin and other Code Pink Marxists focused their energies on organizing sometimes-violent protests against free trade across the globe, targeting large corporations with high-profile campaigns and lawsuits that cost consumers and companies like Gap, Nike and Starbucks millions of dollars. …
Meanwhile, other Code Pink organizers were making a name for themselves in domestic and eco-terrorism in the 1990s. Code Pink Co-Founder Jodie Evans also sits on the board of directors of Rain Forest Action Network (RAN), a radical anti-capitalist, anti-corporate coalition of environmental groups co-founded by Mike Roselle, who also founded the domestic terrorist organization Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which along with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is ranked the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat by the FBI. The FBI attributes over 600 criminal acts and $43 million in damages to the two groups since 1996. Wherever RAN pops up, you’ll also tend to find the Ruckus Society, which has trained activists for ELF/ALF. Ruckus Society organizer Steve Kretzmann, also a Code Pink coordinator, has helped train activists in the agitation tactics that have earned the Ruckus Society its reputation. …
Code Pink may be communism central for the moment, but if the past is any indication, the group will be left to die on the vine as soon as public attention shifts away from the war in Iraq. Like the other wedge issues these activists are so skilled at creating and taking advantage of, the Iraqi conflict is little more than an opportunity to ingratiate themselves with the American public and swell their volunteer rosters while energizing and solidifying the organization they’d been building since the Seattle riots. … It’s goals, as laid out by Benjamin and others in a variety of newspapers over the years, are clear-cut.
They want to redistribute wealth [iv] from the top tiers of society to the poorest Americans by raising minimum wages, choking off trade, pushing up inflation, limiting corporate growth and dragging down the stock market, cutting into the profits of the country’s largest corporations or shutting them down completely and prompting white collar layoffs. …
“Seattle was this kind of battle cry,” Benjamin told the San Jose Mercury News in 2000. “We now know we can mobilize hundreds of thousands of people.”
But to the dismay of the movement’s organizers, September 11 crushed some of that momentum. Ironically enough, September 11 was the day they’d planned to announce their biggest demonstration yet, which was slated to draw well over 100,000 protestors to Washington from around the world in late September. It was instead replaced with a small peace demonstration. The Code Pink ladies have been biding their time ever since, reaching out to middle America, building their contact lists and dreaming of the Marxist America that might one day be.

These movements are against the very entities that promote job growth and economic well being in America. They are against the very foundation of what made America great in the first place. They echo words, phrases and ideas from failed political regimes. And these are people living right here in America, enjoying the fruit of freedom and liberty and all the while tearing away at it bit by bit to create what they perceive as utopia under a system where everyone has the same materialistic “things”, everyone lives in the same standard, communes are good, the collective is best – not realizing that the very elite that are telling the rest of us this is good is not living directly under that ideological standards. If government becomes the entity that governs our lives – WHO exactly are those people running that government and in charge? It is ideology that is so full of hypocrisy and “holes” that it looks like a waffle board after close inspection. Rush Limbaugh during one of his talk show sessions stated if one wanted to find the source of anything - follow the money trail. In effect, this method is being used in the war against terrorism.

One may wonder what happened to America’s political institution. What happened to the American people, not just these brainwashed radical groups, but the home of the brave itself? This change or evolving phenomenon is really nothing new. What is “new” is the persistence by some to change America to a point no longer recognizable in terms of its virtues of freedom and liberties. These liberties were once unique and to some have been a matter of fact. But the founders warned us that we must guard those liberties constantly because there would always be someone, directly or indirectly, that would take them away.

This is an introduction to a series of articles that is about the advent, growth and change of the American political culture with the concept if we know where we have been, we may be able to continue to steer America on course and away from the rocky shoals from which it is presently heading, and has been doing so for at least fifty years. At one time McCarthyism was looked upon as a prejudice folly, a group of paranoid people who “attacked” subversive element within the labor unions, Hollywood culture, within the government and military in what has become known as the Cold War blacklisting. At times this movement indeed would carry things too far; however, long after McCarthy died, it proved to be an investigation that didn’t go deep enough and sometimes looked in the wrong places. Today the FBI has much information on these entities, and as demonstrated above under the guise of “Green Peace” movements and other causes that were originally instituted for the good, have become havens for those who create subversion and undermine the success and strength of America among the nations of the world.

Instead of Iraq being a victory against a dictator whose crimes against humanity were the reasons for his trial and the end of the horrific reign of Saddam Hussein, the political left looks upon the operation in Iraq as an "occupation". Contradictory to its actual purpose and present mission - reconstruction and helping the Iraqi help themselves.

Conspiracies and treacheries have been uncovered under many presidential administrations; there are no drawn lines there upon the two main political parties today known as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. When great power and vast sums of money is involved in any large entity, there is bound to be someone or some group within that structure that will undermine the integrity of those who truly serve their nation and its people. The danger, as demonstrated in recent political history, is that there are those who will denounce those in one party for the same or lesser actions and misdemeanor that is committed by the party they support. It is time for the American people not to hold such blind loyalty to a political entity, but instead loyalty to America itself, which is the embodiment of the people. As an example, communist subversion in America effectively began with the Great Depression and the birth of labor and trade unions. It is not because the gist of the union was evil or subversive; its original purpose was to create a better life for the working class. It was caused by those who were behind the unions and those who control it still today. From 1956 to 1958, the Supreme Court decided 52 cases that involved communism and subversion within our government. Yet, President Eisenhower made into effect two executive orders that closed the door on the congressional investigation of communists in government. This was the time when Earl Warren was appointed Chief Justice of the United States and impacted policy that effectively destroyed security laws of the United States that would snowball through the years to what the judicial system has become today – an instrument of legislation from the bench, and not the entity of overseeing the other two powers of US government for which it was established. When the sedition laws of 42 states during that period were voided, so too was the very meaning of and severity of implication that those laws were meant to be, to the point where the meaning of treason and its implications have dissolved into questionable rhetoric. It was soon after that communism and its counterparts worked its way into the educational system, beginning with the “higher” educational institutions of colleges and universities. It was soon quite evident by the time the “Hippie” culture had become embedded within the framework of American culture with a false front of wanting world peace and world cultural unity. Those protestors that once were part of that subversive elements organized for such a purpose, became part of the administration and faculty of universities and colleges across the nation. And political ideologies that were once only studied for purposes of knowledge became the proposed replacement of the democratic republic for which Americans had chosen a long time ago as their form of government and were instrumental in its success among the nations of the world. Indeed, in past world history, America and its form of government was a role model for others to follow – and some tried soon after the revolution for independence of the colonies of Great Britain known as Americans, as in France.

SOURCE AND REFERENCE LIST:

The Anti-War Movement in the United States
House Committee on Un-American Activities (1938-1975) – Wikipedia
None Dare Call It Treason – John A. Stormer
None Dare Call It Treason - The Nation
Review of None Dare Call It Treason, 25 Years Later - Daniel Pipes
Salt of the Earth: Communist Subversion or Political Activism?
Not Without Honor: The History of American Anti-Communism – Joshua Muravchik Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth Century America – Ted Morgan, New Republic Online A New Look at Communism in America – Pratik Chougule

[i] Isn’t that the epitome of hypocrisy? Communists in human rights protestations!

[ii] The organization ANSWER is supported by the Communist World Workers Party, the central organizers in the US and the world.

[iii] I so often wondered that if life is SO much better in Cuba than here and other communist nations – why in the heck they are living in the United States. Why did Ms. Benjamin return from Cuba after her last visit?

[iv] You know, like the Democrats and RINOs do in Congress.

US Political Party Platforms: Progressive-Democratic Party

2012-01-24T17:32:00.000-06:00

Beginning with the comparison of the US Democratic Party and Communist-Socialist Party, this article represents a summary of political parties in the United States.
One of the most informative sites in cyberspace via the Internet is Absolute Astronomy whose motto is: Exploring the Universe of Knowledge.
Under the topic Party Platform:

A party platform, also known as a manifesto, is a list of the actions which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party's candidates voted into office. This often takes the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform.

Across the spectrum of party platforms, a citizen can examine a candidate’s political party and decide whether it bases its platform and planks upon the limitation of powers of the US Constitution and abides by the rights guaranteed by American Founders in the Bill of Rights, amendments to the US Constitution. The Constitution authors also provided written discussion within the Federalist Papers.

Friedrich Engels' and Karl Marx's 1848 Communist Manifesto.

Adolf Hitler’s 1925 Mein Kampf (Volume II, National Socialist Party Movement). Hitler's political party's name was National Socialist Worker's Party.

Franklin Roosevelt's 1932 New Deal.

The 1948 United States Democratic Party's platform including civil rights.

Lyndon Baines Johnson’s War on Poverty, 1965.

The 1993 Liberal Party of Canada Red Book.

The 1994 United States Republican Party's Contract with America (technically not a platform because promising discussion of measures rather than their adoption).

Mike Harris's 1995 Common Sense Revolution.

Democratic Party 100 Hours, first weeks of 110th United States Congress.

Highlighted points of the US Communist Manifesto -US Socialist Party platform …

The Needs of Working, Unemployed and Farm Families
 Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
 Moratorium on farm foreclosures.
 Labor law reform to remove barriers to workers who want to join a union.
 No privatization of Social Security. Increase benefits.
 Universal prescription drug coverage administered by Medicare. Universal health care system.
 Restore social safety net. Welfare reform that includes job training, supports and living wages.
 Full funding for equal, quality, bi-lingual public education. No vouchers.
Make Evil Corporations Pay
 Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
 Close corporate tax loopholes.
 Restitution to workers’ pensions.
 Strong regulation of financial industry.
 Regulation and public ownership of utilities.
 Prosecute corporate polluters. Public works program to clean our air, water and land.
 Aid to cities and states. Federally funded infrastructure repair and social service programs.
Foreign Policy for Peace and Justice
 End war with Iraq - end military interventions.
 Repeal Fast Track and NAFTA; stop Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). No secrecy.
 Save Salt II Agreements, reject Star Wars and Nuclear Posture Review.
 Abolish nuclear weapons.
 Cut military budget and fund human needs.
Defend Democracy and Civil Rights
 End racial profiling.
 Repeal the death penalty.
 Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action.
 Repeal USA Patriot Act.
 Legalization and protection of immigration rights.
 Public financing of elections. Overall election law reform including Instant Runoff Voting.
 Youth and student bill of rights. Guarantee youth’s right to earn, learn and live.

Democratic Party of the United States

Examine the ‘Progressive’ Democratic Party Platform [Renewing America’s Promise 2008 and Appendices] …
 Government investment in stem cell and medical research.
 Support abortion even if mother cannot pay (2004). Taxpayers provide funding for irresponsible citizens.
 GOP creates debt; Dems create surpluses (2000).
 Democrats will eliminate publicly held debt by 2012 (2000).
 Racial and religious profiling is wrong (2004).
 No federal gay marriage ban.
 Pass hate crime legislation including gays (2000).
 End corporate welfare (2004).
 Charter schools OK; vouchers not (2004).
 We cannot drill our way to energy independence (2004).
 Health Care Coverage for All Americans and illegal aliens (2008).
 Wages set by government (2004, 2008).
 Continued Income Tax System with tax rate schedules with Earned Income Tax Credit and other bonus programs where a growing percentage of Americans receive all tax money at end of year and others pay higher percentages; continue the unconstitutional actions of the IRS and its unauthorized power.
 End tax breaks for businesses, which the Dems claim is causing jobs to be sent overseas.
 Creating new jobs by expansion of government bureaucracy and control over private sector industry. Corporation and private business corruption and evil dealings cause economic strife.
 Government control of the Internet in the name of safety and diversity in media outlets.
 Increase funding and government intervention in public schools, discouraging private schools; promoting government mandated curriculum in education of American youth.
 Promise to eliminate federal taxes for retirees (2008).
 Minorities deserve housing even if they don’t pay their rent or mortgages (2008). Class in society pitted against each other.
 Establish Credit Card Bill of Rights and mandate Credit Card Rating System controlling financial private sector entities.
 Create automatic workplace pensions.
 Improve saving rate of Americans, but will not change the 1% savings rate versus the 24% debt interest rate.
 Protect worker rights without policies against illegal immigration.
 End the war in Iraq. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against terrorists who struck us on 9-11. (2008)
 We will defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan (2008).
 No safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans (2008). [except for those arrested and tried in a liberal court].
 Terrorism will be combated by providing education, open minds to tolerance, food and water supplies, health care, trade, capital and investment … provide support for political reformers, democratic institutions, and a civil society that is necessary to uphold human rights and build respect for the rule of law.
 World Without Nuclear Weapons … global ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
 Support democratic development in Africa; continue aid for poverty, hunger, conflict, and HIV/AIDS.
 Commit an alliance with Latin America and Caribbean nations.
 Bilateral agreements in Asia; One China policy, disregarding the sovereignty rights of Taiwan.
 Continue pouring funds to NATO.
 Only the Democratic Party offers a commitment to support democratic institutions – worldwide. Dem-approved organizations like ACORN, CAIR, et cetera.
 Supports United Nation agenda of a New World Order, a centralized government against sovereignty of nations within the concepts of the European Union; which also supports the ban of civilian firearm ownership.
 Support amnesty for illegal immigrants established in the United States.
 Promise to prevent disasters like Hurricane Katrina (2008).
 Second Amendment: …what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.
 Honor faith but ban the name of God used publicly, public prayer, public display of Ten Commandments, removal of God from Pledge of Allegiance; disallow Christianity in public schools but not Islam/Muslim Appreciation Day.
 Siding with China in Tibet issue (2000).
 Line-item veto to root out pork-barrel spending (2004).
 Support McCain-Feingold bill for campaign finance reform (2000).
 Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole (2004/2008).

Read new book by Jonah Goldberg: Liberal Fascism.
Spectator, UK wrote a review:

The book, a New York Times No. 1 bestseller has, needless to say, enraged lefties (‘liberals’ as they’re more usually known in the States) everywhere. ‘In the first week I had half a dozen emails from total strangers saying, “How dare you accuse us caring liberals of being fascists!” and then going on to say what a shame it was that my family hadn’t been sorted out once and for all a few years back in the concentration camps,’ he says. Goldberg is a New York Jew and growing up as a conservative in Manhattan’s impeccably liberal, Jewish Upper West Side, he said he often felt like a Christian in Ancient Rome. At school and university, whenever he spoke in favour of tax cuts or a free market economy, the response was invariably the same. ‘Nazi’, he was called. Or ‘fascist’. By the time he was established as a contributing editor to National Review, he’d had quite enough of this. He spent four years researching and writing the book which would put the record straight. What he found astonished him. Nazism and fascism, it turned out, was closer kindred spirits of Soviet communism than he could ever have imagined. The first expressed itself through ideas about racial purity and Jew-hatred, the second with ideas about the primacy of the nation, but in most other respects they were all remarkably similar: seizing the means of production; empowering the masses; rule by experts; the elevation of youth and brute emotion over wisdom, tradition and intellect; the submission of the individual to the will of the state. As Goldberg wryly puts it, ‘The Nazis were not big on property rights and tax cuts.’ … Goldberg points out that it was liberals — not conservatives — who were the biggest advocates of eugenics; that America’s most racist (and fascistic) president was the arch-liberal Woodrow Wilson; and that during the supposedly wondrous New Deal of the beloved liberal president FDR, an immigrant dry-cleaner could have his door kicked in and be imprisoned for cleaning suits for five cents less than the agreed government minimum, while Nuremberg-style rallies — prompting a visiting British Independent Labour MP to complain it all felt far too much like Nazi Germany — were staged in New York. Goldberg’s purpose is not to argue that liberals are bad people, still less that they’re all closet fascists. But he does want them to realise that people in glass houses are scarcely in the ideal position to throw stones. … the problem with liberals is that they’ve always been so convinced of their moral righteousness that they never feel the need to analyse their position too deeply. Conservatives are continually agonising among themselves about precisely what the role of government should be — ‘where to draw the line between freedom and virtue’. For leftists, the dogma is settled: ‘Government should do good where it can, whenever it can, period.’ … It’s not the war part of fascism’s inherent militarism that liberals find so attractive but the way it gives the state the chance to take control and put the whole of society on a war footing. In order to effect this sweeping social mobilisation, liberals need grand and apparently urgent causes to justify the bossiness and repression that this inevitably entails. ‘Climate change’ provided them with a perfect excuse for this kind of statist bullying; the new Great Depression has given them an even better one. … The big problem in bipartisan political systems when governments move leftwards, says Goldberg, is that right-wing oppositions move leftwards too, creating what Barry Goldwater christened ‘Me Too Republicanism’ and what Dubya (a much bigger leftie than anyone yet credits) called Compassionate Conservatism. ‘It means buying into the fundamental assumptions of the Left, but promising to do everything a bit more efficiently,’ says Goldberg. ‘Which sounds nice, but is incredibly dangerous. Once conservatives abandon their dogma about the limits of state, there is nothing to restrain the “will to power” that makes them almost as destructive in government as a left-wing regime.’

A 1948 cartoon that warned about those who promise Utopia and government control from cradle-to-grave and disavowing the Jeffersonian republic of which the United States was established:

Reformation of America – To Do List …

Implement the Fair Tax; flat consumption tax code.

Congressional Term Limits.

Legislation shall contain no unrelated amendments.

Abolish the Department of Education.

Pass Medical Malpractice Tort Reform.

English Official Language of United States.

Congress shall not exempt themselves from their own legislation

Drill Here, Drill Now – but continue drive/incentives for alternate energy over natural gas and crude oil; nuclear energy will reduce crude oil dependency; eliminate federal regulation and give power back to the states – Alaskan citizens voted 75% to drill ANWR, but Congress voted NO.

All legislation must cite constitutional authority.

No lifetime salary or benefits for members of Congress (or President of United States).

Federal Spending Limitations (Budget Cap).

Presidential advisers (czars) shall have no regulatory authority.

Bills from the House or Senate will be made public seven days before any vote is conducted in Congress and the President must review for at least three days before signing, except in wartime and disaster emergencies, which will be temporary measures.

All government expenditures be posted on the Internet.

When applicable, congressional members must list the special interest entities that promoted the bill before a vote can be made.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution must be abided, as all amendments of the Bill of Rights by the states of the Union.

Amend the Endangered Species Act.

Abolish the Department of Energy and return national security matters to Homeland Security within the offices of the CIA and FBI and pertaining state law enforcement agencies.

Government will not regulate the Internet but must prosecute violators of Spam, unauthorized access (hackers), prevention of porn on school and public library computers, as well as fraud and scam operations. Government will not mandate an equal or diversification legislation in the name of fairness. Freedom of speech applies concerning the Internet; however, unjustified and/or unproven claims against an individual can be applied by laws already in place, like defamation of character.

Repeal CAFE Standards.

Abolish the automatic congressional pay raise system and change to a system according to government budgeting.

Set boundaries (according to Constitution) and provide better ethical/conduct system.

Cut deficit by rescinding or revising expensive and inefficient government programs; no new taxes; tax rate should remain at fix rate unless approved by a vote of the American people and a two-thirds majority in Congress; reduce foreign aid to natural disaster relief until deficit is reduced by 70%.

Congress should develop a Federal Program review board that reviews programs and legislation that requires rescinding or revising and ensure that any retained correlate with the powers of Congress/government branches in accordance with the US Constitution. The Endowment of the Arts clause provides Congress the power in that area, but reformation as to what government uses taxpayer funding for in what is called art – leave donations to refused grants to private sector in the advocacy of freedom of expression, such as ceramic penis hanging from wire or religious icon, person or symbol defamed.

Government will not harass a religion unless it violates law through violent and subversive doctrine against the People of the United States and/or other religions. Faith Initiative and all aspects of using taxpayer funding for any charitable purpose is prohibited. Welfare is not to be charity, but a program to help American citizens (and only American citizens) to help themselves out of poverty and circumstances regarding unemployment – and those issues should be left to the state governments.

Government must gradually remove itself from control of the private sector. Social Security, as an example, must be gradually changed to an option, not a mandate, and funds for Social Security must be held in trust for that purpose only, as it was originally planned. More freedom of choice in government programs and applications that do not contradict the US Constitution’s set rules of authority for branches of government.

Supreme Court Justices should no longer be a life term and their rulings and agenda should be strictly according to the US Constitution (not foreign national constitutions). The Bill of Rights only applies to citizens of the United States, either natural or naturalized.

Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and must be treated accordingly. Legal immigrants who work hard to meet the standards set for obtaining US citizenship are generally good citizens and should not be insulted by lawbreakers receiving amnesty. History shows amnesty, or any version of it, only encourages more illegal immigrants to work and live in United States. Border security and Border Patrol support must be upheld and its law enforcement officers not wrongly imprisoned for performing their job. Immigrants who support subversive organizations claiming US states are not sovereign from any nation except the United States should be subject to prosecution as subversives against the United States, its government and its People. If unemployment rises beyond a certain point, immigration must be halted until it returns to a prescribed percentage. American citizens, naturalized or born here should not be competing with foreign workers within the United States for employment. Special cases and immigrant requests for waivers must be examined case-by-case and not put into a government basket. Illegal immigrant parents who work and/or live in the United States shall not receive benefits earmarked for citizens and cannot remain even if a child is born in the United States. Businesses/employers who violate the immigration laws and work codes will be prosecuted and if guilty fined for each illegal immigrant they have employed to recoup the cost of deporting illegal immigrants.

Prison Reform: Federal prisons will no longer provide recreational activities such as workout rooms and equipment. Prisoners, except for those on death row and life imprisonment are there to be rehabilitated to enter back into society after sentence is completed or paroled for good behavior. Federal prisoners will be provided employment through farms that produce food for the prisons, work groups that save taxpayer funding through road improvement and community projects, and work industry within the prison. This also established good work habits, which most did not exercise before being sent to prison. Opportunity must be afforded for inmates to receive a formal education in order to improve themselves and increase the chance of successful lawful employment once released. Libraries that contain educational material and subjects pertaining to their educational class studies should be provided in prisons. Films can be provided for weekly entertainment with attention paid to content.

The paragraphs above are a summary of the mass reformation required to get our government back to the foundation of the Jeffersonian republic and return America as a nation to emulate, not scoff at. Reformation of the government can only be enacted by citizens who are willing to reform themselves as a society. This means that if you expect to vote for honest candidates with integrity and character, and then ensure the candidate meets those requirements – and it also means that society should make character, integrity and honesty as a quality of Americans, not a weakness; promoting family unity and family values. Parents are responsible for their children – not government or its controlled schools. Parents and teachers should be working together for the same cause – to raise and teach responsible citizens who are an important part of society and the nation. ROTC programs should be encouraged rather than discouraged to provide an atmosphere of character, integrity and self discipline. Extra curricular programs like the classic arts and education should also be encouraged. It is the intellect that created our nation, our constitution and a great nation.

United Nations needs to move its headquarters elsewhere and an entity established that admits only those nations that exercise human rights, freedom and governments By the People working on each nation’s behalf in unity with the cause to resist tyranny, oppression and inhumanity by rogue national leadership – supporting people of any nation that stands against its government that opposes freedom and liberty.

A tall order, I know, and it will never be perfect as humans are not perfect – but a far sight better than the road that America and other nations are taking. If you want change, change that promotes freedom and liberty; then you need to start working at it. First in America, then as a role model, other nations; and it takes unification, not diversification or political correctness. Opportunity should be an equal process, but it does not guarantee that all who apply for opportunity qualify.

Civil rights means affording people the opportunity to get a chance to apply themselves – not because of their race, skin pigmentation, religion, et cetera; but their education and qualifications. If a minority lacks behind in the percentages of success, then it means they must apply themselves in the area of education in order to achieve a higher percentage of a given minority in the work place and elements within society. Affirmative Action must be repealed, civil rights upheld for ALL Americans. Racial quotes must be ignored and all American citizens shown that education is what gets us places, not economic background, race or the fact they are a minority ethnic group.

Hate crime laws do not apply to everyone – then they should not exist. Equality means just that – and freedom and liberty should be afforded to all law-abiding citizens. Violent crimes are punished by crimes under the rule of law – hate crimes are moot and do nothing but set aside special compensation for specific groups. People do not commit acts of violence because of love – so all violent crimes are hate crimes.

Enuff said, for now …

US Political Party Platforms: Republican Party - GOP

2012-01-24T17:27:00.000-06:00

This article is the second in a series examining US political party platforms.

The GOP has proven only to be the lesser evil in the two-party system that has come to monopolize the electoral system, along with the media misusing its power of the press to decide what candidates or political entity qualify for visibility and afforded the chance to present their platforms in seeking public office, specifically when it comes to congressional and presidential elections.

In 1994, GOP congress members created the Contract with America, (mentioned in first political platform article) but failed as you can determine from the following planks of its platform, to physically follow through and stand by their platform – and the Americans who voted for them.

It might serve a useful purpose if political party members who hold office or intend to hold office to sign in agreement and acknowledgement to their party’s political platform.

Republican Party (GOP) Political Platform (2008)…

Ø Promote adoption and abstinence, not abortion clinics (2004).

Ø Human life amendment to the Constitution (2004).

Ø Patriot Act is used to track terrorist activity (2004).

Ø Homosexuality is incompatible with military service (2004).

Ø Support the advancement of women in the military (2004).

Ø States should not recognize gay marriage from other states (2004).

Ø Nuclear terrorism a grave threat; deploy national and theater missile defense systems to protect American homeland, Armed Forces abroad, and our allies.

Ø Increase the ranks and resources of our human intelligence capabilities; intelligence is key to fighting bioterrorism and cyberterrorism (2008).

Ø Border security is essential to national security in an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States … (2008); yet GW Bush developed a behind-closed-doors plan for a North American Union, agreed with legislation that covertly advocated amnesty for illegal immigrants unlawfully employed and living in the United States, and failed to initiate incentives and infrastructure that would provide more security for US southern border – failed to enforce immigration laws already in place. During eight years in office he promised to examine the Fair Tax Act and did nothing to promote any change in the income tax system as a start towards dissolving the unfair and inefficient system and went along with the Senator Ted Kennedy plan for national education. Nicknamed Dubya, George W. Bush was more of a leftist than even the sociocrats gave credit for.

Ø English is the accepted language … our unity is our English language … we support English as the official language in our nation (2008). This was not followed through by congressional members and a president who claimed to be conservative.

Ø Continue to provide aid to foreign nations despite large national debt, the GOP as guilty of this as the Democratic Party.

Ø Strengthen ties in the Americas and liberal-mutual trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Free trade with Columbia. Removal of communism from Cuba. Promotion of a North American Union, a step toward globalization and what has been called the New World Order. (covertly).

Ø Continue NATO and strengthen relations with Europe, despite the entity outliving its usefulness. Any agreements and negotiations in the form of treaties would be a more efficient and less costly venture.

Ø Russia must respect independence and territorial integrity of neighbors and identify aggressive nations.

Ø Support Israel in its fight for existence. (2008)

Ø …respect for the people of Iran who seek peace and aspire to freedom … a rogue state, Iran’s leadership supports terror, threatens its neighbors, and provides weapons that are killing our troops in Iraq.

Ø Against earmarking and pork spending.

Ø Favor adoption of the Balance Budget Amendment to require a balanced federal budget except in time of war.

Ø Government waste must be taken off auto-pilot. GW Bush didn’t practice what he preached and went along with Democratic Party members not using his power of veto.

Ø Call for a constitutionally sound presidential line-item veto. Line-item veto is an efficient way to send back a bill to Congress for reconsideration due to only certain articles and paragraphs within the bill. It is also a method to strike out pork and earmark spending slipped into bills normally inserted at last minute hoping no one would notice.

Ø If billions are worth spending, they should be spent in the light of day …every item in it should be presented in advance to the taxpayers on the Internet.

Ø …problem is too much spending, not too few taxes; support a supermajority requirement in both the House and Senate to guard against tax hikes.

Ø Urge conversion of programs to defined contribution programs and provide Government Shutdown Protection Act… when advocates of pork threaten to shut down the government unless their wasteful spending is accepted.

Ø Congress must respect the Tenth Amendment … empower the states and improve public services. GW Bush agreed with the Kennedy education bills that further removed power to the states. Except for applying a national standard of excellence, centralized federal government should not interfere with education and not hold it ransom with federal grant dollars.

Ø More government oversight of government programs … congressional committee to reserve at least one week every month to conduct oversight of the nearly 1,700 separate grant and loan programs of the federal government.

Ø Call for a national audit of all federally-owned properties and return unnecessary properties to the American people or to state and local government for public use.

Ø Shrink size of government while using technology to increase its effectiveness; each agency must be able to pass a financial audit and set annual targets for improving efficiency.

Ø Internet transparency in all federal contracting. This did not occur during the GW Bush administration, in fact he was known as an uncommunicative president not in tune with the People.

Ø Recognize the need for a natural disaster insurance policy after lesson learned of Hurricane Katrina. It is important that a president chooses who operates the various agencies of government, those who are competent and experienced in that field and not just to pay back election campaign promises to political party supporters.

Ø Politics of pork distorts the allocation of resources for modernizing the nation’s infrastructure.

Ø Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Provide more control to the people to freely choose own personal investment accounts …supplemental to the overall Social Security system. Eliminate fraud and waste of Medicare and Medicaid.

Ø Appoint constitutional judges for nation’s courts.

Ø Preventing voter fraud and free speech concerning candidates. Not applied when it comes to independent or third-party candidates.

Ø Constitutional Consensus in 2010.

Ø Supports the death penalty; enforcement of existing laws; more victim rights and harsher penalties for certain crimes.

Ø Promote school choice and home-schooling.

Ø Support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school.

Ø Limit role of federal government in education. Did not occur during GW Bush administration and actually increased federal control because of the attitude that more funding is the answer to all issues.

Ø Achievement is basis for access to college. Affirmative Action was just a part of the GOP platform as the Democratic Party

Ø No Kyoto, no mandatory carbon emissions control. Many GOP congressional members gave in to the global warming mania.

Ø Tax incentives for energy production. Providing incentives for alternate energy, while at the same time making America self sufficient when it comes to crude oil drilling and production into fuel.

Ø Private property ownership key to environmental agenda.

Ø Cap-and-trade market-based air pollution reductions.

Ø Support abstinence and fatherhood. Yet still funded government abortion clinics and programs within the education system that promoted promiscuous sex rather than abstaining from it.

Ø Nations that support terrorism are just as guilty.

Ø Reform UN to end abuse, unfairness, and abortion funding.

Ø Will not allow China to attack Taiwan.

Ø Promote free trade.

Ø Open more public land to hunting.

Ø No frivolous gun lawsuits, no gun licensing.

Ø Protect right to bear arms. Yet states who swear to uphold the US Constitution continue to violate the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court does nothing.

Ø No assisted suicide.

Ø No government-run universal health care. GOP members in Congress disobeyed this plank in the platform.

Ø Provide tools for citizens to manage own health care and allow customization of health insurance.

Ø Lawyers should not hold physicians hostage.

Ø Equip our nation to fight 21^st Century adversaries.

Ø Ballistic missile defense.

Ø Eliminate as many nuclear weapons as possible.

Ø Restore defense industry; peace through strength. An important issue of the Reagan administration.

Ø Small businesses deserve better treatment from government.

Ø Workers to have choice in investing payroll taxes (Social Security).

Ø Cut taxes and help families.

Ø Tax cuts and low interest rates lead to home ownership.

Ø Repeal death tax and give tax break to elderly.

Ø Support do-not-call and do-not-email lists. Never effectively administered. Charities were still allowed to invade privacy.

Ø School and libraries should ban porn from their computers.

The Republican Party, the GOP, the Party of Lincoln, has become corrupted like its traditional counterpart, the Democrat(ic) Party. Claiming conservatism, party members are not held in tow for their non-conservative actions and policies in public office. Compromising GOP family values, principles and promises to their constituents for the sake of appeasement to sociocrats within our government has become the norm for this entity of the two-party system that holds a political monopoly over independent and other political parties of America.

Tea Party protesters were not just protesting against Democrats, but Republicans that have been called RINOs – Republicans In Name Only. The protests were against elected officials operating our government across the party lines, but addressing more directly to the Democratic Party for their most serious transgressions against the US Constitution and amendments of the Bill of Rights, like the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments. The RINO calls himself a moderate but aids non-constitutional politicians by their nature of concession against their claimed support of a political party platform.

The GOP has, as its counterpart, diluted its values and principles and matters concerning America over the importance held of its political party. As with its political counterpart, the GOP has lost importance of common sense, seemingly oblivious to real world situations and circumstance and too often agrees or concedes with sociocrat policy and legislation. This has created an atmosphere of constituents who have turned to independent and third-party candidates in order to initiate and retain true reformation of the US federal government and its counterpart state governments.

GOP members are too often more concerned with appeasing political opponents rather than what is good for America and its people. They are not constitutionalists as professed, they are not strong in principles and politics is more important than statesmanship.

One thing for certain is that the Republican Party is not an entity that supports racism as an organized entity, as sociocrat-progressive-Democratic-socialist propaganda asserts. Often the sociocrat media and Internet pundits will try to make people believe that conservatives are part of racist organizations and movements; but in fact, members of the Democratic Party were former KKK members and the Democrat Party of the South in America's political history has become synonymous with the infamous history of the slave institution. The Republican Party isn't called the Party of Lincoln for nothing.

Most racist organizations are independent political entities or covert supporters of neo-Nazi fascism, like StormFront. To say that conservatives and the GOP are part of this movement, to include the same accusation made against Tea Party protesters is preposterous. Racist organizations cover the spectrum of political identity primarily within a political class or ideology of their own. La Raza, for example is a Hispanic racist organization. The Black Panther Party is an African American racist organization. Organizations and political entities like the Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus do not promote unity and the concept that all American citizens are unified under one flag and one country, opening itself to special interest politics.

Members of both GOP and DNC parties have been, throughout their histories, racists either in public or covertly; however their political platform does not condone the ideology, as far as the 21st century.