commonsense

Mitt Romney: Christian or Antichrist?

2012-01-05T14:56:00.000-08:00

Commentary: The American economy is in crisis which is causing many in this nation to question their previous choice of electing Obama and they are looking for another potential political "savior."

Mitt Romney is the leading Republican contender. The fact that he may well become the next President led me to start researching his faith, his values and his beliefs. The question is are his religious beliefs a legitimate area for inquiry?

While the Constitution clearly states: "that there can be no establishment of religious test for holding public office"—it does not prohibit the American voters from informing themselves about potential candidates and their beliefs as they may influence their policy decisions. In fact the Founders stressed the absolute need for an "informed electorate" for the healthy functioning of a democracy.

Therefore I believe Romney's religious beliefs as they may pertain to policy making are legitimate area of inquiry—in as much as if he were a Rastafarian, a follower of Reverend Moon, or a member of some other esoteric faith that most people are unfamiliar with. Just look at the false assertions about Obama being an Muslim have given rise to. Romney's beliefs are of utter most concern and need to be vetted, in light of the tremendous power he may assume if he prevails in defeating Obama.

Mitt Romney the leading Republican candidate, is a bishop in the LDS, a self identified Christian religion—that is anything but Christian—and they have a history of extreme irrational magical thinking—as cults often do—e.g. learning a secret handshake for when they met God—as if God would not recognize them otherwise.

Mr. Romney has a facility of answering yes to conflicting points of view on many subjects including his religious beliefs—on CBS News he said: "I am a true-blue through and through believer. And in the next breath said, My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to the nation." Say anything to get the desired result.

Look at the recent financial resources the LDS spent—39.9 million dollars—to propel the passage of California's Proposition 8 a law that is at it's core unConstitutional by denying a certain class of people their fundamental human and civil rights. That massive effort was based purely on religious beliefs not reasoned secular thought as the Founders intended.

Mormonism's public persona is that of a normal Christian denomination, but the reality of their deeper and sincerely held beliefs are so far out of main stream Christianity that they need to be looked at in the cold light of day.

One ex-Mormon wrote in Why I Left the Mormon Church:

"But the ultimate goal of the church, as stated publicly by its early leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (but not mentioned so publicly by more recent Mormon leaders), is to establish the Mormon Kingdom of God in America, and to govern the world as God's appointed representatives. The church is already influential in the making of secular policy, as was proven not so long ago when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated with decisive help from the Mormon church. To me, the possibility that the Mormon church might control America is a frightening prospect."

It is interesting to note that before his death, in 1844, Joseph Smith was himself a candidate for the Presidency of the United States with an expressed goal of: "establishing the mormon kingdom of God in America."

When combined with the widely held Mormon belief in the "White Horse" prophecy—that in the end-times the Mormon's will "save America and the Constitution—as alluded to, by recent Mormon convert, Glenn Beck's rantings and his veiled reference to the "Constitution Hanging by a Thread", a direct quote from Smith's end times utterances —makes me take pause.

Another of Mormonism's more esoteric beliefs is—that as a man ascends through the various levels of Mormonism,*he himself may become God—and will be given a planet of his own to rule over.

The full quote from The Manual on Celestial Marriage last paragraph on page 6 http://www.ldslearning.org/celestial-marriage.pdf:

"The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness (sic) of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go to an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they will receive the fulness (sic) of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds, will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have endless eternity for this."

Which is a direct quote from (Smith's, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:43-44 48) 4shared.com - free file sharing and storage - download

Mormons when confronted with these secret deeply held beliefs will dodge, evade or deny them. WHY? All of these teachings come directly from past and current Mormon leaders or ex-Mormons and are not the work of outsiders. What are they hiding?

There seems to be a built-in duality of veracity in Mormonism that goes back to the founder Joseph Smith regarding the deeper teachings of the church.

Stephen F. Cannon in his years of research of the LDS noticed this strain when he wrote: "This legacy of deceit in the history and doctrine of the LDS church is well-known to those who walk in Mormon circles. There are numerous articles in “alternative” Mormon periodicals that deal with the subject of “lying for the Lord.” One that strikes to the heart of the matter was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.

As an example he sites: "Critics of the LDS church have for years pointed out how Joseph Smith Jr. and many succeeding prophets had lied to cover up the practice of polygamy. It has only been recently, however, that public acknowledgment of these charges have been emanating from within the LDS church."

Mormon's justify it in "unofficial" Mormon literature as "lying for the lord"—a trait that Mitt Romney seems to have mastered and frequently exhibits equally well in his public life.

My only concern in this matter—is not to bash Mormonism per se—it is—that our value's are informed by our beliefs, but our differing views on faith have no place in the secular political sphere and the shaping of political policies.

There is a reason the founders were wary of overlaps in the affairs of the state and religious entanglements and that is why they insisted on a distinct separation between church and state—with beliefs like the one mentioned above— my question is: Does Mitt Romney understand the Constitutional Separation of Church and State or is this the fulfillment of the Mormon apocalyptic end time "White Horse" prophecy*—and is this planet he intends to rule over as a exalted man-god, in a Mormon theocracy?

*
White Horse Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For further research I suggest the following sites:

Mormonism, LDS, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministr

Why I Left the Mormon Church

Deception: Legacy of Mormon Prophets

MormonInfo.org | We challenge you to question Mormonism.

THE, SECRET, MORMON, GENERAL, HANDBOOK, OF, INSTRUCTIONS

The fourteen fundamental articles or beliefs of Mormons | Recovery from Mormonism

Top 10 Bizarre Mormon Beliefs

Mormon teaching: there is nothing more pagan

Leaving the Mormon church after years of being a Mormon is difficult

“Enough cliches about faith. Mitt’s Mormonism matters” « Mitt Romney and Mormonism

Mormon bias still part of politics - USATODAY.com

PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

2011-12-12T20:34:00.001-08:00

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so Im going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real distain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Thought for the Day: If taxation of the rich is a “redistribution” of wealth?— What is cutting taxes on the wealthy with money borrowed from China?

I think Weber is really confused about what a tax cut is; he seems to have tax cuts confused with subsidies. Maybe it’s the terminology used: “giving a tax cut” sounds like you are giving something to someone, but what it actually means is gov’t is letting that entity keep what it already owns.

Dear Mike, Under the current monetary system which is corrupt and I believe unconstitutional the banks "own" the monetary system lock stock and barrel. Under the original Constitutional mandate—the Congress alone had control of the currency. Its printing and distribution. That money was and still is printed by the Treasury Dept. and is backed by the full faith and credit of government of the (taxpayers) people.

It is—NOT—backed by the full faith and credit of "the FED", and it is —NOT—backed any one particular individual citizen, or private bankers. The American dollar has value—solely because—it is—backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government—meaning the people.

Your assertion is that because an individual holds a dollar its his is absurd—without the collective power of America that dollar has no value to anyone you may as well wipe your butt with it.

Try putting your mug on a dollar and spend it, e pluribus unum, is on the dollar for a reason. The strength of the dollar lies in "One out Of Many" THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The government should take back control of the monetary system like it did under Lincoln. *see "History of the Moneychangers"

Your rather simplistic assertion makes taxes sound like the government is stealing "your" money—when in fact—the government is loaning you their credit worthiness and on tax day is sending you a bill for services rendered.

Finally Smith made his position on taxation crystal clear when he said:

”The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.” source Wealth of Nations Adam Smith

Which cuts the legs out from under your specious argument that the government is stealing from you—it can't steal what it is owed. No more than you billing for services rendered makes you a thief.

I've already said I advocate stopping ALL NON-ESSENTIAL CORPORATE SUBSIDES.

Finally, every dime taken out of the "system" must come from someone else—US Bonds—which are sold as debt instruments and are a promise to pay back the money lent plus interest, that money comes out of future tax revenue. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not revenue neutral—as you so smugly imply—they are real and they do come out of the pockets of the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy.

Or maybe you think the tooth fairy magical pays off those bonds.

This is the end of PART 3

PART 2 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

2011-12-12T20:25:00.000-08:00

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so I am going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: Dear Mike part 1-9.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real disdain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

On December 2, 2011, by Mike (last name unknown) responded to my blog

PART 2 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

If Capitalism is the principle upon which we were founded— did our forefathers die for The United Corporations of America?

Not really, they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses, and generally left everyone alone.

Dear Mike, At one point in your rebuttal you say: This guy can’t tell the difference between a free-market Capitalist and a crony capitalist, or monopolist. Not true, but, because there is not much difference between them—I choose to ignore the minuscule difference you find so compelling, but there is a glaring difference that you don't get—it's the difference between Capitalism and Representational Democracy which you seem to hate and are constantly attacking as the "government" the foundation of which, is the Constitution.

If you had stopped at "they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers" that's a rather dull but, acceptable answer, but then you add, "that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses" Your tortured logic aside. The Constitution doesn't say anything about capitalism being the economic model that had to be followed.

The point is there are many capitalists who equate Capitalism with Representational Democracy—treat them as though they are one and the same. When I have challenged capitalists and pointed out flaws of "unregulated" capitalism—I have been labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, a liberal, a socialist and a communist.
Nothing is further from the truth.
Its human nature to question the things we rely on the most, that's what always drives humans to reinvent everything that touches their lives and try to improve on them. That includes "unregulated" capitalism.

Because in the final analysis, all men are flawed in their thinking—and all products of their thinking are flawed. Therefore all ideologies of men are flawed. Scientific, spiritual, economic, and political. The human mind can not anticipate all the variables that surround him or all the variables that his mind cannot perceive—at best he can detect patterns from which he can extrapolate some but not all outcomes.

Scientific, economic, spiritual and political theory are at best—attempts to control the world of chaos that surrounds us—and eliminate as much of the uncertainty as we can. We attempt to "regulate" the chaos.

As a scientific theory E=MC2 is brilliant but, even it, explains only a small percentage of the known universe and when pushed to its extreme limits seems to fall apart.

Communism was deeply flawed an unsustainable theory which combined a unified economic and political theory. On the other hand, American Republicanism and Capitalism are two separate theories. One is—economic the other is political—they are ideologies that work in symbiosis, but under deeper analysis—are—at their extremes the antithesis of one another.

Democratic Republicanism guarantees the rights of individuals by choosing who represents "our" best interests and regulating the eventual conflict between competing interests. Unregulated Capitalism promotes self interests without regard for the interests of others.

Like Communism—Capitalism as a theory, when pressed to its ultimate logical conclusion—is unsustainable. It consumes everything and "conserves nothing." An obvious irony lost on the ultra right wing "conservatives."

Even more ironic, is that the "unregulated" consequences of both ideologies—in their final extremes, enslave the people and take away their liberties. One through brute force the other through economic enslavement. And both contain the seeds of demise for their political hosts. A critique of "Unregulated" Capitalism does not make me a socialist or communist.

I am an apologist for neither ideology. Only a critical observer of both—especially when they attack the foundation of "our government" and the Constitution".

So the real question is: Are Unregulated Capitalism and American Democratic Republicanism one and the same and therefore inseparable—as the ultra right unregulated free trading capitalists would have us believe?

The answer is no!

They are not inseparable! And a critique of one is not an attack on the other.

The real problem I have is between "regulated' and "unregulated" capitalism.

Ayn Rand styled, Darwinistic unregulated capitalism leads to economic anarchism—the recent history of the banking failure is proof. Which you dismissed as some kind of leap of logic—thereby glossing over the most devastating financial meltdown since the Great Depression by ignoring the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

In another comment you called me a "statist"

In the Federalist #10 written by James Madison the second most brilliant of the founders, said:

"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. 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."

To put it more succinctly—the prime function of government as stated—is the "regulation of factions" or in modern jargon "special interests"—if my agreement with James Madison about the necessity for regulation—makes me a "statist" I wear that label proudly, as a mark of distinction and a badge of honor.
Finally Madison's words fly in the face of your contrived cockamamy idea that the government should leave you alone and unregulated.

This is the end of PART 2

Part 1: Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

2011-12-12T20:12:00.000-08:00

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 I was excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so I'm going to publish my response in nine parts under my: "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: as Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric. In that vein I have used a graphic that is more in keeping with his more antagonistic tone.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real disdain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded this blog post as follows: the post he critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 1 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

Since when does a “Christian Nation” rob the poor to give to the rich?

Well, since 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment, giving the rich power to directly tax the citizens of the United States. That’s also the year the Federal Reserve Act was passed, giving private corporations cartel monopoly power over the money supply of the United States, and the 17th Amendment was passed giving the Senate to the richest candidates.

Dear Mike, I am no lover of the Congress—which abdicated their sworn fiduciary responsibilities to —as you put it—the "rich." Your words not mine. The US monetary system should never have been "privatized" — it belongs in the hands of the representatives of people. The fact that government has the sole responsibility for issuing the currency of the nation, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the government (the people) and is then charged for the use of that money, by private banks is on its face ludicrous.

A case in point was a period leading up to the Civil War when the Bankers were betting on the side of the South and refused the Union credit to fight the war and Lincoln began issuing "Greenbacks" Lincoln said:

"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

Banks rob the poor with usurious predatory rates of upwards of thirty percent— on money which virtually costs them nothing, and at "unregulated lenders" its even worse for returning soldiers at payday lenders. They (the banks) are the rich, to whom I was referring.

When they have privatized everything, how will you petition a corporation for redress of grievances?

Easy – you’ll file a warranty claim for faulty goods, or a civil claim for severely faulty or harmful goods, or a police report for criminal activity. What’s the problem?

Dear Mike, You're lack of understanding of the deeper moral issues and your flip answer about consumer products, to prove how clever you are—are the problem.

It tells me that you don't fully comprehend the dire unintended consequences of rampant "unregulated" capitalism, especially when it comes to "privatizing" government functions.

Case in point, is the recently passed Arizona Anti Immigration Law that was written by a, "private for profit capitalist corporation" (the Corrections Corporation of America*) that builds and operates prisons. That law required that any Arizonian stopped and asked for proof of citizenship could be arrested if they failed to produce said documentation and sent to prison. I wonder who they were going go to ask for ID and to which prison they'd be sent?

That law was written at a conference of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)—that pays the way of state legislators, such as Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, who introduced the law, and is a member of ALEC—to be "educated" by for profit businesses—who are interested in privatizing government functions—its funded by the uber capitalists Koch Brothers.

That same issue of privatizing government functions was headline news in Pennsylvania where: [quote]"Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella used children as pawns, locking them up unjustly in a plot to get rich. Ciavarella is accused of taking nearly $1 million in kickbacks from capitalist Robert Mericle, the developer of the PA Child Care Centers, owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes". [unquote]

In one instance, he sentenced a college-bound high school girl to three months in juvenile detention for creating a website that made fun of her assistant principal. So much for free speech.

*CCA in their own 2003 Annual Report painted an industry rife with inefficiencies and corruption of State Lawmakers to get favorable laws passed that benefited CCA. A direct quote from that report said: [quote] "The private prison business represents a problem disproportionately larger than its current size. The existence of an industry based on incarceration for profit creates a commercial incentive in favor of government policies that keep more people behind bars for longer periods of time. CCA has been active in trying to influence correctional policy in the United States. As described in Chapter 3, it has done this through its ties with public officials and legislators, its extensive campaign contributions and its involvement in a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that promotes a conservative criminal justice agenda to state legislators around the country."

I would think a real "libertarian" would be repulsed by such intrusion and obvious breach of the Constitution. You know—that "god damn piece of paper" GWB referred to when challenged about torturing prisoners of war.

After 20 years of tax cuts for the rich— where are the jobs they created? China?

"Well, there are jobs everywhere, including China.

Dear Mike, DUH!

First of all there are two elements that have had a devastating impact on the loss of American jobs. Deceptive "free trade" policies and tax cuts—both sold as job creating measures.

Both "free trade" agreements and tax cuts—that are promoted and endorsed by, and pushed through a"real conservative" Congress, by "real conservative" lobbyists for the "real conservative" so called American Corporation, and that were supposedly predicated on opening foreign markets to US products—are really about finding "cheap labor" which would destroy American labor unions and starving the beast—to cut the social safety net.

In other words it was about making American workers compete with foreign workers who were paid a pittance in wages under intolerable conditions tantamount to slavery.

NAFTA is a case in point—Ross Perot warned that if they were passed "the giant sucking sound we would hear"—would be jobs going to Mexico." And for the average American it became a race to the bottom. The second part of the plan was "the big lie"—that if we taxed "capitalists" at a lower rate—that "the job creators" would create millions of jobs and the wealth would trickle down to the average American. After tax cuts from Reagan until Bush 2—the net effect is a stalled economy and we lost millions of jobs instead.

Under 30 years of Republican management—who strategically created the current debt crisis with the aforementioned trade agreements and tax cuts meant to decimate the American work force and "to starve the beast—we have lost Americans jobs by the millions. In fact the economy lost 3.78 million private sector jobs in 2008 under the real conservative management of GW. So the question based on those two big lies remains: "Where are the (American) jobs?"

What Weber should be asking is: After 20 years of increasing corporate taxes, increasing regulations and restrictions on doing business in the U.S., increasing costs associated with hiring and employing citizens, increasing restrictions and penalties for hiring immigrants, increasing complexity from municipal, county, state, and federal governments in this nation, TSA agents strip-searching and sexually molesting travelers everywhere, where did the jobs go?"

Dear Mike, Your assertion—that corporate taxes have increased in the last 20 years—is patently false they have in fact gone down over the last twenty years—as a percentage of GDP—which is a large contributor to the "deficits" many of which were run up under your "real conservative philosophies"—a deliberate strategy to "starve the beast "for the sole purpose of under cutting the social safety net.

According to 2010 OMB data 81.5 % of tax revenue comes from individual payroll taxes and individual Income taxes an additional 9.6% comes from other sources less than 9% comes from corporate taxes. Source OMB.

And what does TSA strip searches have to do with anything about jobs? Which by the way came in under GW Bush who created the Department of "Homeland Security" as part of the :"war" on terrorism—a"real conservative" president who also authorized secret monitoring of American citizens a violation of the fourth amendment and referred to the Constitution as a "god damn piece of paper" in regard to the use of torture. So much for real conservative "small non-intrusive government."

When the rich and powerful oppressed us in 1776—didn’t we revolt?

Sure we did. And we all remember this line from the Declaration of Independence: He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Dear Mike, Your spin is showing--your reference to king George's imposition of troops, hardly pertains to the Constitutionally elected government of the people as the oppressors, and it conveniently ignores the current plutocracy that is now governing this nation through its bought and paid for congressmen.

Doesn’t that remind you of the last paragraph?

No.

When corporations finish privatizing our government who will represent you? Koch Industries?

What does that even mean?

See above Read my response to: When they have privatized everything

Dear Mike, More specific to your response is the current situation in Wisconsin where—the Koch Brother's stooge—Scott Walker has all but disbanded Unions by taking away the one thing that gives them strength, their ability to negoitate as a block. However an under reported part of that bill--* was a provision that privatised Wisconsin's gas and oil piplines along with state owned power plants--a total sell out of the people of Wisconsin--guess who the benefactors were? The Koch brothers.

For more on the subject:

* "

It will allow the Koch Brothers to buy or contract to operate state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants in Wisconsin without a solicitation of bids."

Daily Kos: The Koch Brothers' End Game in Wisconsin and: Did the state of Wisconsin receive compensation for turning over their piplines and utilities to the koch brothers - Google Search

This is the end of PART 1

A Series of Letters from the Left to The Right: Dear Charlie

2011-12-11T12:27:00.001-08:00

Commentary: This is a continuation of a series of exchanges between myself and conservatives who have taken issue with comments that I have made through FB. I call it: Letters from the Left to the Right". If I think they are justifiably angry but wrong on the facts of the issue I put the name calling aside and try to engage them in a rational dialogue.

In response to an article in The Huffington Post about how small businesses are suffering while global giaints' prosper in the wake of the financial meltdown I posted a comment that we had nationalized the Banks Debt but didn't Nationalize their profits or cap their bonuses and that that is exactly what we should have done Nationalize the Banks starting with the Fed. I got an angry responses from a man I didn't know and he accused me of being a radical socialist and that i was anti American. After reading his response I took a chance and wrote him directly on his FB page. The following is a series of exchanges that took place over several weeks.

Michael February 18 at 11:23am

Dear Charlie,

Sorry you have misconstrued my meaning. I am talking specifically about globalized corporations and large monopolistic banks that brought this country to its knees with their phony "too large to fail" excuse to rob the American taxpayers. All the players in that scenario were Wall Street insiders. The reason the average American worker is out of a job is that globalized corporations have found cheaper labor in foreign countries and they get paid by the American taxpayer to do it. I am not a champion of Communism. I am a champion of restoring the balance of power. In The Federalist #10, James Madison said the most destructive thing a republic could face is an imbalance of power where one faction imposes its will to the detriment of everyone else. Certainly just an objective observation by anyone of the current American political scene shows that in the past 30 years that power has shifted heavily in favor of the super rich. They pay no taxes to speak of in fact their are the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts over the past 30 years. All of those tax cuts are borrowed money and are being paid for by you and I. Today in this nation 1% of the population control 95% of the wealth. If you have ever played Monopoly as a kid you know that when everyone else is bankrupt you are the winner and the game is over. In real life that means families become homeless and are torn apart. I know that the propaganda of the Right is appealing, but I challenge you to find one program they endorse that will help create jobs. They claimed that the tax cuts for mega rich would create jobs. In fact their mantra of more and more tax cuts have had the opposite effect, there have been an exodus of jobs. The playing field is not level its been tilted by the influence of corporate lobbyist who have sold Americans a toxic mix of poisonous propaganda and bought every politician that has no morality. I am an ardent student of American history and have read many of the documents that were the underpinnings of this democratic republic. most of the claims made by the republicans are contrary to what the founders intended. They didn't want a small government as the Republicans insist, the wanted a large robust government that protected the people from the tyranny of the majority or minority. Why would they rewrite our history? When someone lies to me I start looking for their ulterior motives. It usually comes down to greed. Why did they want to deregulate the banks? They got their wish and look what happened within ten years the banks bankrupted this country. In closing I hope you will take an objective look at the current American political scene and reconsider what is really going on in this country.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie February 18 at 4:42pm

The extremes you speak of are not the answer. But a Deli closing portending the end of the world is .....well......way too fanciful.

Michael February 20 at 5:18pm

Dear Charlie,

Thanks for the reply, however I would take exception to your assertion that my ideas are extreme. For example, if you think my idea of Nationalizing the FED is extreme or radical it might interest you to know that there were other American Extremists who thought that it was a good idea—they were: Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln—from a book by Andrew Hitchcock "The History of Money Changers"

http://www.iamthewitness.com/book /Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.History.of.the.Money.Changers.htm

James Madison stated,

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will ... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres."

Jefferson later made the following statement,

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

President Jackson vetoed a bill to renew the Charter of The Second Bank of America and in his veto message he stated the following,

"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of the Bank are held by foreigners ... Is there no danger to out liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?

Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence ... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower the favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

In the act before me there seems to be wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."

After the Bankers refused America credit to fight the war and Lincoln began issuing "Greenbacks" Lincoln said:

"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

In A History of American Banking under the Title:

Deregulation, Bank Failures, and New Technology

it states that:

Several deregulatory moves made by the federal government in the 1980s diminished the distinctions among various financial institutions in the United States. Two major changes were the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980) and the Depository Institutions Act (1982), which allowed savings and loan associations to engage in often-risky commercial loans and real estate investments, and to receive checking deposits. By 1984, banks had federal support in buying discount brokerage firms, and commercial banks were beginning to acquire failed savings banks; in 1985 interstate banking was declared constitutional.

Such deregulation was blamed for the unprecedented number of bank failures among savings and loan associations, with over 500 such institutions closing between 1980 and 1988. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), until it became insolvent in 1989, insured deposits in all federally chartered—and in many state-chartered—savings and loan associations. Its outstanding insurance obligations in connection with savings and loan failures, over $100 billion, were transferred (1989) to the FDIC.

Further deregulation occurred in 1999, when Congress overhauled the entire U.S. financial system. Among other actions, the legislation repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, thus allowing banks to enter the insurance and securities businesses. Supporters predicted that the measure would permit U.S. banks to diversify and compete more effectively on an international scale. Opponents warned that this deregulation could lead to failures of many financial institutions, as had occurred with the savings and loans.

That's from a objective third party. What bothers me is that when deregulation failed and brought about the "financial crisis" that has brought this country to near ruin—the Republicans didn't bat an eye or even acknowledge that their policies to deregulate had failed—they brazenly stuck to their guns and blamed everyone except themselves and tried to block legislation to Banking reform, which is the primary function of government to regulate "special interests" or as Madison referred to them "factions".

The Fed creates money and gives it to the banks interest free the banks turn around and charge you and I as much as 20-30%. That my friend is why we are up to our eyeballs in debt. Its private banks that set the interest rates, its not the, poor who need help with heating oil, teacher unions in Wisconsin or any other targeted group the Republicans go after. Its the banks and the corrupt politicians they own. We bailed them out and now they are sitting on boatloads of money and they won't lend it to keep the economy afloat. That should tell you something about their morality or lack thereof. I don't know about you but, I am a Christian and the oppression of the poor leaves me enraged.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie February 20 at 6:32pm Report

Mike....you are amazing me with the stuff you are aware of. The unions are being targeted by Republicans for a good reason.....their benefits are out of whack.

Michael February 21 at 1:57pm

Dear Charlie,

WOW! I am almost speechless I just laid out why the bankers have nearly ruined the economy with "credit default swaps" and how the Republicans have given the banks a pass and tried to block new financial reform and you say the Republicans need to regulate unions because their benefits are out of whack. So in essence your telling me—Republicans are willing to regulate teachers and firefighters wages but not monopolistic predatory banks—who are the real cause of this mess. I have a news flash—the unions are not the cause of the economic problems that face this nation—the Republicans are attacking unions because they are part of the democratic base and they are trying to eliminate any and all Democratic support. Charlie I am sure you are a good decent man, but let me just say that the downfall of this Nation will not come from the Left and some "commie plot" it will come from the Right just like it did in pre war Germany after Hitler disbanded all political opposition. This Nation as the Founders intended it —a democratic republic—is already dying and is in its last days—if the Republicans have their way, we will all be servants of the "upper class" and I will stake my life on the fact that the "upper class" does not include me or you and our families or anyone that you or I associate with. They think Americans are stupid and will blindly follow them when they spout their simplistic propaganda and hatred. They counting on Americans being prejudiced, lazy and ignorant. There is a reason Rush Limbaugh refers to his audience as "dittoheads" In his arrogance he is telling them they can't think for themselves—so as he might—say—"let me do your thinking for you". It is a reflection of the real distain he has for people that are swayed by him. I urge you my friend to really pray about this instead of blindly supporting the people that are going to destroy this country. As a veteran I pledged an oath to defend this country from enemies—outside and inside—this country, the real enemies as I see it are NOT Unions, but the people who want to suppress them.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie March 3 at 8:00am

Jesus said "The poor you always have with you". By seeking to replace jobs with redistribution the Feds have spent trillions to no avail. The tyrannical bouguise is now the university-government elites who are NOT the super rich but make millions and billions feeding at the government trough. If you want someone to fight against.... fight against that entangled web of bureaucrats and tenored socialists.

Michael March 3 at 9:40am

Dear Charlie,

Are you talking about the bourgeois causing this crisis? I am having trouble with understanding how the middle class are the culprits in this financial meltdown. The Banks were deregulated and started creating predatory loans that have put middle class families into foreclosure and bankruptcy. Tenured "socialists" and government bureaucrats—whoever they are—didn't do that.

Just so there is no mistake and I understand you—the word "bourgeois" is defined as a noun:

1. A person belonging to the middle class.

2. A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.

3. In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

as an adj.

1. Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.

2. Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

Is that correct? If that is the definition of "the bourgeois" you are talking about, isn't that the American Dream to become a property owner? A person of respectability? A contributor to society? A person of means? Are you saying the American Dream is dead? And only the the mega-rich should survive?

Furthermore, the context of the quote—"the poor will always be with us"—was the night of the Passover Seder or the Last Supper as we Christians refer to it. A poor woman came in and anointed Jesus with expensive oil which the disciples objected to as a "waste of money"—that could be given to the poor.

Please note that if the money hadn't been spent on the oil it would have been given to the poor instead.

Jesus chastised them and said, he would not be around much longer, but that the poor would always be in need of charity. He didn't mean to say what you seem to be implying that we should ignore the poor because they are an endless affliction on society. To the contrary his entire mission was focused on the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, and sinners like me and you.

By the way the full quote about the poor is found in Mark 14:7

7“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.

In fact in one of his most famous teachings about who will be saved Jesus said:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these , you did not do for me.’

Matthew 25:31-45

The "least of these" are: the poor, the sick, the hungry, the naked, everything the democrats have done in the area of public policy—health care, social security, food for the poor, heating oil subsidies, education programs to lift the children of the poor out of poverty, are a in proper alignment with what Jesus commanded us to do—love one another as I have loved you. We've spent trillions on the poor and there are still poor—so to hell with em? What?

You sound like a man of principle and a christian—if what Jesus said is true and you believe him as I do—then my advice to you is—if you have one crust of bread left give it to someone that has none. Because my friend, you can't lay up earthly treasure that will help you where we are all going. "What profit a man who gains the world and loses his soul?"

Sincerely, Michael

Let Freedom Ring

2011-11-21T11:52:00.000-08:00

As I watch the events that are shaping the future of America, a growing sense of disbelief and sadness overwhelms me—as Republican state after Republican state adopts voter suppression laws in this country. To me it is a slap in the face to every man and woman who served, died or was wounded either physically or mentally to protect the freedoms that Americans cherish.

My father's generation sacrificed their lives to rid the world of "fascism", or as Mussolini called it "corporatism", an unholy alliance of the rich, aloof business class, a subservient military, prepared to obey even the most horrific orders—for "the homeland"—and an authoritarian government—that sought the enslavement of the "ordinary people"—all to satisfy rantings' of a megalomaniacal lunatic.

Those who saw the death camps first hand —that were euphemistically referred by cynical Nazi propagandists as "work camps"—were shocked to the core and were then outraged, by the piles of unburned corpses and the sight of walking skeletons—the victims of the same nexus of power hungry Nazi elite—the so called Übermensch. The "super race".

Those images were so shocking to me they still haunt me to this day as much as when I saw them in a LIFE magazine pictorial about WW II as a child—I can only imagine the devastating impact they had on the young soldiers who witnessed the sight first hand when accompanied by the sounds human anguish and the stench of rotting human flesh.

Many young soldiers who bore witness to such inhumanity said it was the first time they understood that, that was why they were fighting. It brought home to them in the most profound way the meaning and promise of America. It changed them forever. It changed America too.

That same vivid atrocity also struck Americans at home in their souls and played a large role in the accelerated end of segregation of the military under Truman—and a generation later, the expansion of voters rights, the end of the shameful Jim Crowe laws in the south, and the sham of "separate but equal education"—they were rightly exposed as just another form of oppression and completely intolerable to the vast majority Americans. Equality for all was the lesson of that generation! All men were created equal, reverberated in the American heart.

That sense of "equality and justice for all" sparked the Civil Rights movement and led to the Voting Rights Act—that liberalized and expanded democratic participation to every African American citizen finally keeping promise of full participation by all Americans in their own governance.

The Voting Rights Act was the fitting legacy of the aftermath of WW II—a culmination of a struggle that began with "emancipation" the slaves of the south nearly one hundred years earlier by a Republican president.

Today—because of voter suppression—that legacy is in peril.

Commentary: There are some things worth dying for—liberty is one of them. There can be no liberty without the right to vote—it is the foundation of all other rights. That is why Republican attempts to suppress that right are so utterly contemptuous in their implementation—it is so anti-American it is inconceivable to the vast majority of Americans—yet it is happening in every "republican held state" in the nation. In my view there is something fundamentally repugnant about a political party, that is so desperate to gain and maintain power they would deliberately engage in such treasonous behavior. It is a stunning repudiation of the sacrifices American veterans have made.

In a now infamous October 16th 2005 memo from Citibank* some of their the top executives, declared America, "a plutonomy" and except for **the peoples power of the vote they were advising that the rich would only get richer at the expense of the working and middle class. Their fear of a working class uprising is being realized in the current mobilization of the Occupy Movement. America wake up and rise up, now is the time to take back our country from these self-proclaimed "Masters of the Universe." These same plutocrats—who take everything and give nothing— keep us so focused on the enemies outside and pitting us against each other—that we fail to see them as the enemies of democracy in our midst.

A young Marine, Scott Olsen, who served his country for two tours in Afghanistan—who sustained head injuries that impaired his speech—not in Afghanistan—but at a Occupy Oakland protest—said with great eloquence, "I took an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, that oath did not end when I took off my uniform." "I was simply exercising my first amendment rights to peacefully assemble and ask the government for a redress of my grievances."

I was moved by his courage and feel the same today as I did, when I too took that same oath as a young man. Duty bound to honor it. It occurred to me that it's time—that all Americans—whether you served in uniform or not—need to take, or reaffirm that oath—to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. It reads:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

If not us—who? If not now—when?
We are the people.
We are the government we elect.
They cannot buy "our" government.
They cannot suppress our votes.

* ELITIST BASTARDS - Citibank Plutonomy Memo Scandal - YouTube

**commonsense: America:The United States of Plutocracy.

Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With Liberty and Justice for All

2011-11-15T16:28:00.000-08:00

The Suppression of the Occupy Wall Street Movement Is Unconstitutional.

The reasons are simple the Constitution says that the people have a right to assemble peaceably and petition government for the redress of grievances. Its guaranteed.

By its nature the Constitution is written in broadest possible strokes and does not enumerate or attempt to tell people what form their protests should take. It does not say they can petition the government only Mon-Fri from 9:00am to 5:00pm. Nor does it say that they cannot sleep in tents overnight as part of their protest. It sets no limits other than it be done peaceably. All others forms expression are permitted.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress* of grievances.

The Constitution is purposefully written in such a way as to allow for the most diverse expressions of human and civil rights and to prevent the government from abridging the rights of the people. That is so that the government cannot say—"its not in the Constitution therefore its not a right".

Another way of looking at it is that the Constitution strictly limits the Governments rights by listing their rights and any rights not listed belong to the people. That is so the government can't make up petty rules that restrict or defeat the peoples rights—such as setting a curfew or limiting such assembles to a certain place.

This is made clear in the 9th amendment that states any right not listed in the Constitution is still a right retained by the people. Government is limited by a list the people are not limited.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

The 10th amendment recapitulates the same thing regarding the rights of the states and then restates the rights of the individual over even the state.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Commentary: Both of these Amendments were added because, there was an on going— "wrongheaded'—debate at the time which argued for the inclusion of a "Bill Of Rights" which listed all individual rights of the people. The founders saw that as a trap, that would be used to suppress the rights of the people and simply stated that there are no limits on peoples rights, but, set definite rights of government. They concluded and rightly so that the rights of the people are infinite and given to them by their creator—any list would finite and by its inclusion automatically limit the rights of the people.

In the sixties the government circumvented the rights of the people, by putting government paid provocateurs among the demonstrators, who would then cause violence and property damage allowing the police to move in with extreme aggression smashing peoples heads in order to prevent the people from petitioning the government.

That tactic is still being used today and is a clear violation of the intent of the founders. The other tactic was to marginalize the demonstrators with labels—liberals, communists, hippies, drug addicts, elitists, spoiled, pampered, lazy, a mob e.g.

Right wing radicals are little better than "fascists" whose only knowledge of the Constitution is limited to the 2nd Amendment and who would suppress every other right of the people they disagree with. When that occurs there is little difference between the authoritarian governments of Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia and the United States when both suppress the rights of their people unjustly with violence.

The Right always says that they love the Constitution. My question is why do they subvert it every chance they get?

*Redress—redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [

An open letter to John Boehner: The Benedict Arnold of our times.

2011-07-26T08:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr Boehner,

You stated last night that the President created this crisis [quote] - "the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear."[unquote] Do you really think for one moment that people are so stupid that you can insult our intelligence with that kind of bold faced lie.

You made up numerous other lies, to mislead the American people—but the point is:

WE KNOW WHO HAS ORCHESTRATED THIS CRISIS. YOU AND THE TEA PARTY. BUT THE PARTY IS OVER. WHATEVER YOU WERE HOPING TO GAIN IS ALREADY LOST. YOU'VE OVERPLAYED YOUR HAND. AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. YOUR BETTING THE FARM AND YOU DON"T OWN THE FARM. YOU ARE JUST A HIRED HAND THAT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE.

In the end you will be held accountable for this grievous wound that you and your party have inflicted on this nation's honor. You have jeopardized it's financial stability with this outrageous scheme and in the process it's National Security. This Nation was founded on COMPROMISE. Something you never knew or have forgotten.

How dare you hold this Nation hostage in a game of political one-upmanship. You are playing a very dangerous game, on behalf of your corporate masters—and frankly you're not smart enough—you are fooling no one by your mendacity.

Great harm has already been done and if it continues and this ends badly for this Nation —you had better find a very deep hole like Saddam Hussein did, because there is no where you can go, no where you can hide, that people will not curse you and revile your name. You will go down as a modern day Benedict Arnold. You and your tea bagging colleagues. You are on the wrong side of this fight and you know it. In your heart of catholic hearts you know this is wrong. No one is going to thank you for this debacle. You've pushed this nation to the brink and NO ONE LOVES YOU FOR IT.

In my opinion—the harm you and your party is doing and have already done, is more than al qaeda ever could dreamed of doing to damage this country's stability.

In opposition to all that you stand for

Michael Weber

Adam Smith: The Budget Debate Examined

2011-07-15T10:13:00.000-07:00

Once the plutocracy has destroyed the middle class who's going to buy their cheap China imports or afford to pay for their energy or buy their over processed foods or pay their exorbitant interest rates and usurious service fees.

The free marketers are fond of Adam Smith and use his ideas to promote their behavior—but—on closer reading he never condoned the kind of behavior that is prevalent among modern day Capitalists.

He said:"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that (the interests) of the consumer." he was just as concerned for the welfare of the consumer as he was for the "job creators" He understood what the "masters of the universe" don't—commerce is a societal contract and that mutual benefit must be shared.

He also said: "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." Does that sound like the modern oil barons who exploit the "commonwealth of the Nation and take enormous profits and are also rewarded by our government with tax subsidies on top of their exploitive profits? Does that sound like bankers who get money created from nothing and given to them for free while they profit from it by inflating the cost to borrow it? The current plutocratic class are waging a dangerous war that they cannot win by economic subjugation—sheer numerical superiority will win out as it has countless times before in human history—the French Revolution and our own revolution were violent reactions to the masses being repressed by the ruling class.

On the issue of taxation he said:"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate."

If he were alive today he would be the first to approve of a tax increase and a "progressive tax system", because he knew there is no free lunch. "And that, to whom much is given much is required."

Commentary: The "conservatives" are fond of pointing out that "our" government of, by, and for the people, is a waste and produces nothing of value. "Its the problem." they say.

I say—It's the problem—that builds dams and roads and bridges—invents the internet—puts a man on the moon and in the process invents thousands of technological innovations that have created jobs beyond anything the private sector could ever hope to accomplish. It's the problem—that launched synchronized satellites that allows GPS and cell phones to operate? It's the problem that controls disputes and conflicts that maintains order and civility. It's the problem—that helps educate our young and care for our old and sick. It's the problem—that rushes into burning collapsing buildings and try's to save lives. It's the problem—that comes to our aid when natural disasters strike. Without the interstate how would they move their cheaply made inferior outsourced products from China. Where would they be without the internet. Where would they be without the stability that a strong government provides.

They say that "our" government is the problem. It seems to me the only time its a problem is when it doesn't favor their selfish point of view and they can't buy enough political clout to get their way.

Its quit clear that CONservs cherry pick their belief systems and ignore long established codes of societal conduct and common human decency. Make no mistake every dime of tax cuts for the "job creators" comes from you and I and adds to the "debt ceiling." Every dime they receive is coming out of your pocket.

Did Republicans Deliberately Increase the Debt So They Would Have An Excuse To Gut Medicare?

2011-05-22T19:25:00.000-07:00

This "deficit crisis" has been manufactured by excessive tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, an inexcusable war in Iraq, a corporate give away to pharmaceutical companies, a fake bank crisis and bailout brought on by the Republican deregulation of banks. Why did Republican's try to block finance reform after the banks brought this country to near collapse? Why are banks sitting on trillions of dollars and not lending it to American Small Business the real engine of economic growth? Why are they speculating on oil markets that are driving gas prices through the roof for the average American?

This manufactured "CRISIS" has been engineered by the Republicans from top to bottom, so they can say "See We Told You So, Government Doesn't Work." Their constant undermining of the American peoples trust in their government started with a lie that the government "is the problem". It began under Reagan when the Republicans decided that in order to cut the size of government they would need to reduce the governments revenue stream—taxes. It was refered to as "starving the beast".

"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to create or increase existing budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. Prior to being elected as the President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker." It appears the earliest use of the term "starving the beast" to refer to the political-fiscal strategy was in a Wall Street Journal article in 1985 where the reporter quoted an unnamed Reagan staffer."

[from Wikipedia under starving the beast]

But why would they wanted to bankrupt our Nation?

Its thirty years later and now we know "WHY?"—so they could gut every social program that this Nation has. They intend to balance the budget on the backs of average Americans. The so-called Ryan DEFICIT REDUCTION Budget was crystal clear.

Paul Ryan's—"DEFICIT REDUCTION BUDGET"—(shock)—DOESN'T REDUCE THE DEFICIT—for seventy years,—(double shock)—because it contains another 10% tax cut for the richest people in the country. But it does cut Medicare-it cuts back Social Security–and severely cuts every other government program and regulatory agencies that protects the American people against fraud waste and abuse—(triple shock)—but doesn't touch one dollar in government "tax spending" for corporate welfare or raise one dollar of taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

"Economist Paul Krugman summarized the strategy in February 2010: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."

[from Wikipedia under starving the beast]

THIS WAS A DELIBERATE ACT OF SABOTAGE NOT SOME FINANCIAL CYCLICAL EVENT: It was planned and executed by a core of Ultra Right Winged Republican's and their very wealthy bosses, like the Koch Brothers. If it had been carried out by the old Soviet Union or some other foreign entity it would have been considered an act of war. These men who have done this are NOT American patriots they are TRAITORS guilty of SEDITION and TREASON. They have risked the national Security of this Nation solely for their own financial benefits. Look at the history—its all there. Research it yourself.

They hate the poor and label them as leeches.

They want to pay for the "deficits" they created—on the backs of the old.

They spew anti government remarks that incites treason.

They hate the power of the vote.

They hate union workers.

They hate the middle class.

They hate women's rights.

They want to RULE like KINGS not govern as representatives of the people. They SERVE their corporate masters and conspire to bring down America.

They want a New World Order where they are MASTERS of the masses.

They see the average American as a tool they can turn against each other.

They use the propaganda tactics of nations at war to turn countrymen against one another with labeling stirring up hatred and jealousy.

Why would anyone who claims to love America do what they are doing to America?

Jesus said you would know his followers—not by what they said—but by how they treated one another—with love and respect.

The same can be said of the Republicans who wrap themselves in the flag and profess their love of the Constitution and then say they want to drowned our government in debt and starve it by cutting taxes on the rich. We know they hate America by what they do—they are suppressing voters rights in Wisconsin, and abrogating local city governments by silencing duly elected officials in Benton Harbor Michigan so they can take over valuable land that belongs to the City of Benton Harbor. Every Republican held State is in the process of passing state laws that are Un-American and Un-Constitutional. They are defending the indefensible at the highest halls of government when they propose to defend DOMA—a clear cut attack on individual human rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Republicans hate "average" Americans and consider them unworthy to determine their own destiny as laid out in the Constitution. If they hate the average American, they also hate the document that lays out their rights. If they hate the document that lays out those rights they hate the America. If you are reading this Republicans hate you, because I can guarantee they don't have a clue of your existence.

Commentary: If you are supporting them out of some sort of misguided notion you are in their class or could be, you are deluding yourself, they are laughing their asses off and wondering what the poor are doing? The poor includes you. Their contempt is obvious—their most famous talking douche bag calls his followers "dittoheads"—as in you are too stupid to form a thought—so let "me" tell you what "you" think.

The question is.

Is the Master of "DITTOHEADS"right?

In Memoriam: The Day America Murdered Its Children

2011-05-02T14:54:00.000-07:00

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
—Thomas Jefferson—

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Forty-one years ago, on Monday, May 4, 1970—that right to peacefully assemble and freedom of speech—guaranteed by the Constitution—was violated at Kent State University by the representatives of the people—who had sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Four Kent State students were brutally executed by their government for exercising their first amendment rights, during several days of protest against Nixon's broadening of the Viet Nam War into neighboring Cambodia.

While Jeffrey Glenn Miller and Allison Krause did take part in the protests, which, was their constitutional right. William Knox Schroeder (at Kent on an ROTC scholarship) and Sandra Lee Scheuer were just walking between classes, not protesting.

The undisputed facts are: None of them were armed—none of them posed a threat to the Guardsmen—none of them deserved to be gunned down and none of them deserved to be vilified in death as they were—to cover the brutality of their murder. Nixon in an unguarded moment referred to them as "bums" and indicated, "they had it coming." Other Ultra Right Winged Conservatives called them "commies."

Yet they were the true American Patriots—citizens voicing their dissent of "their governments" actions in an immoral war.

History has vindicated them—as Viet Nam became the most unpopular war in which this country ever been engaged. Their murder marked a turning point and hastened the end of that war.

Personally, it was a great shock that in America—American National Guard troops could be ordered to not only interfere with those rights—and violate the Constitution—but—to murder its citizens without compunction or anyone being brought to justice.

That failure to respect the rights of unarmed citizens changed forever my perception and the perceptions of many others, of a benevolent government that was a watchdog of our cherished freedoms. It was the beginning of my awareness of the ugly reality of repression within my own country by the Ultra Right Wing Conservatives.

It has been a long decline into an America that no longer understands the Constitution that can be violated at will "by the people's" own government.

For more information see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Commentary: After the shootings Neil Young wrote the most famous of all the anti-war protest songs of that period in our history. The words speak for themselves.

"Ohio"
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

1. Series "Letters from Left to Right": Dear Tim

2011-04-19T08:40:00.000-07:00

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Commentary: I often go into FB political chat-rooms looking for people who I see are sincere in their beliefs but, angry or confused. I start corresponding with them in a sincere effort to establish a reasoned dialog without the vitriol and usual name calling that has become the norm in such places. I have collected a series of those dialogs and want to share them, from time to time on this blog. I call them; "Letters from Left to Right". I hope you enjoy them. Thanks

Timothy W.
How much did you pay in taxes Bob Wagner?
Why do 45% of Americans get to be called taxpayers when they pay no taxes?
And if you are lucky enough to have a job,taxes are taken out (loaned to the gov'mt).
When you file on 4/15 or 18, you get some of it back, unless you have a ton of deductions then you can possibly get it all back or unless you fall in the alternate min tax then you get it all back.
So I ask...why should someone that already pays the bulk of the taxes so the thieves in Washington squander away have to pay more?
I am not rich nor do I fall in that category but I did not get any back in fact had to pay a grand more.
I vote for the Fair Tax and or at least everyone pays a percentage with no deductions.
But that will never happen because the thieves would lose their power!

Dear Tim Three things about money.

One
No one likes paying taxes. I don't, but, the reality is the government of, the people, through "our elected" government—prints the money, distributes the money, and backs the money with the full faith and credit of the Nation. The idea that somehow money is "your money or my money" is a false premise—it is a simplistic campaign slogan of the Right— that is appealing and raises a lot of emotion but, falls apart under scrutiny. Taxes are like a bill that the government sends you for all the services they provide. Streets roads, flood control, national defense, health care, the list is endless.

So unless you print, distribute and back US currency with "your" full faith and credit you like all of us are the "borrowers" of said money. By the way if you are somehow printing your own money, its illegal.

Two
The government takes the money back briefly on "tax day" to pay for all the things that "we elect our government" to do for us. The government in turn pays out all the money it takes in and recirculates the money. It does not hoard the money. It recirculates it. No one is stealing "your" money. Money is meant to circulate—like blood it keeps the economy alive.

Three
DISTRIBUTION: The real problem is the distribution and circulation of money. The treasury gives the money it prints to private bankers that control "the FED" some times at zero percent interest. Those bankers are the real thieves, they skim off the top by charging interest to others. Sometimes as much as thirty percent, on money they have been given at little or no charge. And they are stingy about who they loan it to, so the government regulates them—or did until the Republican right—deregulated them—it took ten years for the banking system out of control to bankrupt this country.
CIRCULATION:
As I said the purpose of money is to circulate it so every body gets to use it to promote the "general welfare". What happens is some people are greedy and will go to any means to accumulate as much money as they can, which is not a problem if they recirculate it, but, many don't they hoard it and refuse to recirculate their money because it gives them power and control. They control the political messages we hear and see they control "our" representatives with bribery— I'm sorry "campaign contributions". They take everything and pay nothing back.

FINALLY:
You are right about the tax code being unfair—which is—but not for the reasons you presume. Its unfair because although the rich are the greatest beneficiaries of the freedoms this nation has provided them. They pay nothing towards its support. Like a deadbeat dads. 400 families control 80% of the money in this country. Now that is not fair, and they are so good at controlling the message—that they have you supporting their agenda. They have the average American fighting over the twenty percent they haven't stolen from us.

I sincerely hope that I don't come across as condescending I don't mean to, I was taken in by them for awhile myself, I was busy raising a family and was not paying attention to the politics of the country for many years, when I did the "Right" were deeply entrenched and almost impossible to eradicate. If you're going to be pissed like I am you may as well know who's to blame. "It helps to all be firing in the same direction" as my old DI would say.

Sincerely Michael

Did Our Fathers and Sons Die for the United Corporations of America?

2011-04-11T13:26:00.000-07:00

Adam Smith Reexamined:

I had a recent e-mail exchange with D. Doty, an ardent supporter of Adam Smith's idea—that the unintended consequences of "unregulated" markets" was by and large, beneficial to society and far outweighed the negative effects. In light of that exchange I began to explore some of the most cherished myths of Capitalism. Which led me to the question...

Does Unregulated Capitalism Contain the Seeds for the Destruction of America Democracy?

In his treatise, Adam Smith's, The Wealth of Nations, there is an often misquoted and not well understood passage. It still raises debate even among "expert" economists who claim that—man's greedy economic self interests provided unintended benefits for the public at large when "left unregulated" in a domestic market.

It is often referred to as the "invisible hand" of the market place.

It was, in its time, considered a brilliant observation of human nature and revolutionary, in that it elevated what was widely considered to be a sin—"Greed"—to be something that could be used to benefit men.

It was akin to asking. Can something as powerful and potentially dangerous as the atom be used to solve man's ever increasing demand for energy? Can something as powerful and potentially dangerous as unregulated greed be used for the ultimate good of mankind?

The difference is of course are obvious in order to "harness" the power of the atom it "must be rigorously controlled"—and regulated. The key word is harness as in tethered and under control.

So the question is: Is unregulated "greed" any less destructive and any less in need of regulation. You might be inclined to say: It can't kill you. Or can it?

Unregulated, It can produce ever more cunningly diabolical weapons of war that unleash the power of the atom in an uncontrolled explosion and produce massive deaths. And It can sew the seeds of conflict that make war a never ending cycle. And thereby create a never ending market place for those weapons it makes. [See Smedley Butler War Is A Racket] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_Racket

Unregulated, it can decide to move elsewhere—say China—depriving you of, the job it gave you and take with it your means to provide medicine, food, shelter and clothing, leaving millions to fend for themselves when they have forgotten how to survive in our post agrarian society. It can choose to ignore large segments of the population and leave them in utter poverty to starve from famine, and to die from unmet medical needs. It can exploit poorer nations for their resources, leaving a dictatorial ruling elite enriched and the general populace destitute. [See Globalization]

Unregulated, it can rob millions of their homes, their life savings and their hope, even leading the most desperate to commit suicide. It can kill. Without feeling or remorse. [See the "Inside Job"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film)

Unregulated, it can buy what it needs to preserve itself even representation in a government of the people, to the detriment of the people, even overturning elections with corruption. Unregulated it can pollute the environment and destroy the earth.

There are flaws in the theory that go beyond those I've already pointed out when you consider other factors. In its the modern adaptation of the theory—other theories that have been attached to it such as Ayn Rands' idea of "economic darwinism" which is Adam Smith on steroids—add libertarianism and it takes it to the level of sadism with the intentional infliction of damage on the weak—at its extremes. [See ENRON the "Smartest Guys In The Room"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron:_The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room

Those ideologies—Unregulated and Combined—impart a brutal disregard for the "unintended"—as in the case of ENRON— and the "intended" consequences of its "unregulated" effects of wantonness.

Decoding Smith
I have intentionally left out a part of Smith's idea—that is largely ignored by modern adaptors of his theory. It contains the idea of mitigation. In the context of his theory he spoke of domestic vs foreign marks and the natural preference of domestic markets over foreign markets. But he only used the word unregulated in reference to domestic markets. In order to mitigate the effects of greed he was suggesting that this idea was applicable only to domestic markets. That without saying it—was his idea of "regulation." That still begs the question is unregulated capitalism on a massive scale under any circumstance a good idea?

The whole enchilada
In his treatise, The Wealth of Nations, Smith made reference to "the invisible hand" and stated:
[quote]
"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestick industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.

By preferring the support of domestiek to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Nor is it "always" the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good. [emphasis added].
[end quote]

A further analysis
In an the afore mentioned exchange of emails with D. Doty I went into some other aspects of its—in my opinion—obvious flaws:

[quote]
Dear Doty, RE: Adam Smith;

Because all men are flawed in their thinking—all products of their thinking are flawed. Therefore all ideologies of men are flawed. Spiritual, economic, and political. The human mind can not anticipate all the variables that surround him or all the variables that his mind cannot perceive—at best he can detect patterns from which he can extrapolate some but not all outcomes. The flaws in economic theory and political thought are at best attempts to control the world of chaos that surrounds us and eliminate as much of the uncertainty as we can.

E=mc2 is a brilliant theory but explains only a small percentage of the known universe and when pushed to its extreme limits seems to fall apart.

This is no less true in the area of political and economic theory. In the 18th century Adam Smith wrote his economic theory based on the prevailing economic theory of that age "mercantilism" a forerunner of Capitalism which is the dominant economic theory of the 21st Century.

Mercantilism stated a belief in the economic benefits of trade protected by government protectionism. And with protectionism come "strings" or if you will "regulation." His argument was in favor of "deregulation" of domestic markets without the strings.

Like everything written by men it is: 1. open interpretation and 2. contains flaws 3. it was written in the context of the history of his time.

Three variables that make it difficult to use as an theory that can be trusted in today's world.

1. Open to Interpretation: The invisible hand was only mentioned half way through his treatise, hardly a place of prominence for a central principle of his theory, which leads me to believe it has been given more weight than intended. Therefore deserves a very narrow interpretation which leads one to believe that he was talking about the law of unintended consequences as it applies to "regulated" domestic industry vs. foreign industry, thus my emphasis. The "invisible hand" was mentioned in his other works within a different context and meaning which would make it esoteric. Even professional economists have interpreted his work differently.

2. It's Flawed: It eliminates all other human characteristics of human nature except greed—and treats man's intentions as purely involuntary—not understanding or caring about the consequences of his actions. Man is treated as if he is a dumb pig rooting about and unintentionally plowing a farmers field. It does not address the flaw of monopolies that swallow up whole markets and strangle competition. It claims an efficiency that is rarely if ever achieved in any human endeavor. It trusts the fate of many people to the vagaries of speculation and the whim of the few. It is self defeating—at its extremes it cultivates extreme pockets of poverty and wealth which have produced violent upheavals including the French and American Revolutions—thus undermining the stable environment that is the primary prerequisite for markets to function, and the very reason American businesses have thrived while others faltered. What happens when the peasants see no hope and rise up?

3. The History of the times: There was a keen competition between Nations at the time and British Empire Building was nearing its zenith and his reference to the preference of domestic vs. foreign industry. There was a built in bias towards domestic industry—at the time "the sun never set on the British Empire" and all resources were considered "commonwealth" and therefore domestic. It does not apply to the International Markets of today's world he could not have foreseen that.

Those are the reasons I cannot see that Smith ever intended his theory to be applied as broadly as it has been in this modern "World Economy." While Smith's theory was brilliant for it's time—like Einstein's theory of Relativity it does not explain everything that needs to be considered.

Sincerely Mike
[end quote]

Is An Attack On Unregulated American Capitalism—An Attack on American Democratic Republicanism?

As—Father, Tom Matchie, the best teacher I've ever had—would have said: "I call bullshit!
Meaning: That's utter bullshit! Think about what you're saying! Think about what you're reading! Think about what you are writing! Think about the meaning! Think about the Logic!

The short answer is NO!

When there is even a hint of critical analysis of "CAPITALISM" it gives rise to the usual viscous slurs of communist, socialist, liberal in a pejorative tone.

Nonsense! What a ridiculous leap of logic, but it is exactly the rabid response that is hurled at anyone deemed UN-American enough to say unregulated capitalism is flawed. As if there is no other alternative. Man's mind and skill at adaptation belie that simplistic notion. Extreme belief in flawed deeply rooted ideologies, is at the heart of most human conflict.

What's the difference?

Capitalism and Republicanism are two different disciplines.

What Capitalist do to protect themselves from critical examination is wrap themselves in a political doctrine they hate—American Democratic Republicanism. Capitalists and capitalism self identifies as fundamentally inseparable from American Democratic Republicanism and therefore an attack on capitalist and capitalism is an attack on America. And any suggestion to the contrary engender a vitriolic flurry of personal slurs.

My contention is that just as Communism was deeply flawed and unsustainable. Capitalism too, is an economic theory, that when pressed to its ultimate logical conclusion—is unsustainable. It consumes everything and "conserves nothing." An obvious irony lost on the ultra right wing "conservatives." Even more ironic, is that the "unregulated" consequences of both ideologies—in their final extremes, enslave the people and take away their liberties. One through brute force the other through economic enslavement. And both contained the seeds of demise for their political hosts. I am an apologist for neither ideology. Only a critical observer of both.

But another question remains: Are Unregulated Capitalism and American Democratic Republicanism inseparable?

Again the answer is no!

I repeat One is—economic the other is political—they are ideologies that work in symbiosis, but under deeper analysis are—at their extremes the antithesis of one another.

They are not inseparable! And a critique of one is not an attack on the other.

A better question is: Is Unregulated Capitalism an Attack on American Democratic Republicanism?

When Unregulated Capitalism is detached from "American Democratic Republicanism" and its interests are different from "American" interests then a resounding, YES, is the correct answer.
Like a parasite that consumes its host—capitalism has permutated and is now a danger to its American host. It has slipped it's host after devouring it's assets and has now in pursuit all of the World's remaining wealth. A cancer cell out of control would be an obvious analogy.

There are other differences.

What are the Nature, Objectives and Principles Of These Two Different Theories

Unregulated Capitalism, is by its nature is—sociopathic—as stated by Smith: it is the rigorous pursuit of self interest oblivious to the consequences of its economic activity good or bad. As we all know a sociopath in terms of individuals is a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior marked by a decided lack of conscience. Furthermore, Unregulated Capitalism according to Smith has only one objective personal enrichment. It is narrow and fixed. Unregulated Capitalism can be summed up as: The self is greater than than the whole. Its overriding principle is greed. It is Individualistic and anti-social at its core. And when you add in Ayn Rand's idea of "social darwinism" it can be brutal and ruthless.

Contrast that with:

American Democratic Republicanism, is defined as the belief that all men are created and of equal value—none greater than another—in the eyes of their creator and in the eyes of their "government", which consists of—their fellow men elected by the people to regulate differences among various "factions". By its nature it is Social experiment based on a community of caring for the "general welfare" an all inclusive, concern about the "needs" of its people. Its objectives at the time of its birth were to end the oppression of the rich and powerful who controlled men's lives without regard for their human rights. It was "tolerant", "forward looking", "progressive", "open-minded"—it was based on—"enlightened thinking" in an age of suppression and oppression. It at its core is an experiment in "liberal democracy". At best it appeals to "the better angels of our nature." It was based on respect of all men not the few.

And maybe the final and biggest difference between the two ideologies is:

Unregulated Capitalism treats a human as a "consumer of it's goods products and services without regard for any responsibility, if you can't pay you don't get the services you nee, even if they are life threatening needs, such as medical care. When they have taken all they can from you—they will leave you penniless, homeless and hopeless, you become useless to them and disposable. How will you petition a corporation for redress of grievances. You become just so much human refuse. They will knowingly or unknowingly trample your rights without compunction or remorse.

American Democratic Republicanism as a government, treats its citizens as humans with "unalienable" rights, as constituents who elected those who govern them to look out for the general welfare of the people they govern. It treats you as a citizen and values your contribution of service. A government that will protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The same cannot be said for unregulated capitalism.

The purpose of Government. So let's all get together and play nice.

So, How do you reconcile the fundamental differences of, equality for all and the self interest of Unregulated Capitalism? Government "regulates' by means of laws—controlling the unbridled passions of one group that may try to impose it's will on another group—and establish "a tyranny of the majority"

With that brilliant idea that "all men are created equal" a debate began that is still raging today: How do you balance the special interests of the few or a small group whose interests, intentionally or unintentionally—destroy the rights of a minority. One of the debates from the beginning was should it be a Democracy or a Republic. Madison wrote of his preference for a Republic in the Federalist #10.

As a part of his argument, Madison contended that a strong robust government—consisting of the people's democratically elected representatives, forming a Republic—needed to be big enough to "regulate", disputes between "factions,"—in todays terms—"special interests." A fact that belies the modern Capitalists mantra "Government is Too Big" And the chant to "Deregulate Everything." Without Law (regulation) disorder will prevail. Hence the phrase: law and order—you need one for the other to exist.

Madison's' argument was that a weak government with little power could not in fact prevent one group from dominating another and thereby impinging on the rights of the minority. A weak government is ineffectual. A weak government cannot protect the weak from the strong. A weak government is impotent.

The Open Conflict of Two Diametrically Opposed Ideas

As an example: Take the economic interests of the south and it's dependence on slave labor to manage its "unregulated" agrarian economy—that was in direct conflict with the Constitution. While there are many reasons for not addressing the obvious conflict—the primary underlying reason was pragmatic—in the beginning the government was too small to enforce the Constitution. They could not have ended slavery even though some wanted to—every other reason ever given was subordinate to that glaring fact.

Evidence—as the government grew large enough to enforce the Constitution the country erupted into open rebellion and a Civil War over that issue. The American Civil War at it's roots—was about the injustice of "unregulated capitalist" economics. States Rights, and other so called causes, were, red herrings, meant to confuse the debate.

We falsely assumed that the Civil War ended, but the underlying cause—economic enslavement to unregulated capitalism is still being fought and this, American Democratic Republic is, once again at stake.

From the beginning these two ideologies—one political and the other economic—have been in direct conflict.

Now as during the Civil War Unregulated Capitalism is tearing at the fabric of our government of, by, and for the people and replacing it with a government of, by, and for the rich. Unregulated Capitalism has superseded the will of the people and simply buys what it needs, including representation in our former democratically elected government.

As the bible states: You cannot serve god and mammon because you will love the one and hate the other. Just so you cannot serve two ideologies that are in direct conflict with each other.

My argument is not with "capitalism" per se, it is with "unregulated" capitalism.

Smith was wrong in his presumption that markets are "self regulating" when left alone. The true test of theories is their application over time. American history is full of examples of unregulated capitalism and the devastation that can arise when left to their own—anything goes in the pursuit of profits mentality. As long as there are humans on earth there is a need for laws to regulate their behavior.

Commentary: Capitalists—have used the term "liberal" as a pejorative—twisting the meaning into mean something evil and sinister. They have deliberately associated its meaning to imply that a liberal is a communist.

As in: liberal
1 tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.

2 progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.

3 broad-based, wide-ranging, general. antonym parochial, small-minded, provincial, narrow, conservative, illiberal

4 flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite. antonym inflexible, strict, authoritarian, to the letter.

5 abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.

6 generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.

Notice the opposite of everything liberal—narrow minded, bigoted, reactionary, conservative, parochial, small-minded, provincial, narrow, illiberal inflexible, strict, authoritarian, to the letter, careful miserly—speaks to the attributes of a neo-conservative capitalist.

The opposite of liberal is conservative—not communist.

How illuminating when you truly understand a word and its opposite meaning and the information it conveys.

You decide what kind of Nation you want to live in an—Unregulated-American Capitalist Plutocracy Or a Liberal Democratic Representational Republic as laid out by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

Sign me, a proud unabashed liberal.

On a personal note: I mentioned Tom Matchie and I dedicate this post to him. Tom Matchie, energized in me, with an absolute, life long love of language, critical thinking, and the power of words. Unfortunately, he appeared rather late in my academic life, but, the fact that he appeared at all is a blessing—I've been grateful for ever since. He awoke in me a latent intellect, I didn't have a clue, I possessed. He treated me—a self identified, "scarecrow"—as if I had a brain. Something no one else had ever done. Thanks Tom.

An American coup d'etat.

2011-04-08T09:51:00.000-07:00

The sudden "discovery" of enough ballots in a Republican county, by a Republican civil servant to overturn the will of the people in Wisconsin is nothing less than an American coup d'etat. Sorry for the french, but, there is no English word for an overthrow of a government, it was a testament to the stability of the British government.

American's in their complacent belief that our democratically elected representational form of was immune from an overthrow have repeatedly ignored the warning signs—and have allowed this final assault on our last vestige of "our" power—"our" vote. Stealing our elections is the last step in consolidating their power. This is class warfare—not started by the under class but by the upper class. They have been waging it since the first man appointed himself king

We are the proverbial frogs in an increasing warming kettle too lethargic to escape our inevitable fate. Living in fascist plutocracy. We have consumed ourselves into corporate servitude.

A small dedicated cadre of right winged fanatics are gradually taking over step by step—they have managed to turn a government of by and for the people against itself. And replaced civil servants at key positions that can in effect entire election outcomes.

The most obvious remedy is a "Nationwide a day of rage" (any community organizers out there) and boycott of all products, multi-national.

If their are any really talented hackers out there that are up "for striking a blow against the establishment" well you get the idea. Can you hack her e-mails? Can you get to her computer? Maybe its time to take back our country from the Koch Brothers and the Wall Street!

Commentary: How about we all stop paying our loans and credit cards an withdraw all of our savings and put them in community credit unions—all at once. Or start a series of flash a mob demonstrations at the NY Stock Exchange, at CitiBank, at Bank of America, in the halls of Congress. Or at their mansions in the Hamptons.
How about we stop paying taxes like the rich have done.
How about we all stop paying our insurance premiums and really take back our health care system from the insurance companies that are the one's really driving health care costs.
How about we show them where the real engine of this economy lays.
How about only shopping at mom and pop shops support the local economy only.
How about we form community credit unions and make loans to each each other with reasonable interest
How about we ignore the pharmaceutical dictates and by our medicine from Canada.
How about we stop buying gas and walk or ride bikes at least once or twice a week until they focus some real attention on alternative energy.
How about we do it all everyday until their get the message.
How about we let them know it's not cool to buy "our country and screw over the American voters.

How about we get off our sorry complacent asses and create some pandemonium, some peaceful non-violent delicious mischief that hurts em where they live. In their...sorry I meant to say "our" pocket books!

I suggest starting with a boycott of all Koch brothers products.

The following products are made by Koch Industries - Democratic Underground

Fabrics:
• Lycra Fiber
• Coolmax Fabrics
Georgia-Pacific paper and wood products:
• Quilted Northern toilet paper
• Angel Soft toilet paper
• Soft 'n' Gentle toilet paper
• Mardi Gras toilet paper
• Vanity Fair paper plate and napkins
• Brawny paper towels
• Dixie cups
• Plytanium plywood

Trump's Birth Certificate Reveals His Jamaican Birth

2011-03-31T09:29:00.000-07:00

Double click for larger image.

Clearly, the revelation of Trump's Jamaican birth in 1946 makes him a subject of the British Crown and ineligible for the Office of POTUS. NOTE: the seal of Jamaica at the lower right of the document in this FBI enhanced photo. Please feel free to distribute this photographic evidence as proof of his intended deception of the American people.

Further investigation shows that he is

the leader of a little known sect within Rasafarian culture that subscribes to the belief of "Ever-living" Its members believe that they will live forever on earth in the same body until the judgement day comes therefore must "come as they are" before god. For "the Donald" judgement day has come in the revelation of his "foreign birth."

His Rastafarian upbringing explains the dreadlocks-like hairdo—he has clung to "religiously" even at the expense of great personal ridicule. As a Rastafari he believes that adult males must never cut their hair.

Despondent over a sudden unexplained weight gain and this latest devastating news about his "birth"— "the Donald" flew home to his Rastafarian roots and let down his hair thus explaining the long standing controversy surrounding Donald's hair style. It seems that in Rastian culture adult males are forbidden to cut their hair and are required to Rastify when returning home.

Robbing The Poor To Give To The Rich

2011-03-31T07:36:00.000-07:00

Commentary: Something stinks to high heaven in the current economic and political life of this Nation. The inequity of wealth, the suppression of human rights, the small government advocates who want to meddle in our personal lives right down to our reproductive rights . Wisconsin should be a wake up call to all middle class and working Americans and act as a warning that the balance of power has shifted in favor of the rich and powerful who now run this country and own our government by virtue of their growing economic power.

Just one example of the growing disparity and outright lies being told by the Conservative Right is no where more glaring than the recent example of GE. They Claim: America Corporations are taxed at 35% the "highest tax rate in the world" Truth is: GE. as a U.S. Corporation made 14.6 billion dollars on profits in 2010. They paid $0.00 in U.S. taxes for the last two years—that's ZERO dollars. They Claim: Lower taxes will create U.S. jobs. Truth is: GE laid off 21,000 Americans of its American workers and closed 20 of its American based plants, And is currently asking the remaining American workers to take a pay cut. The result: GE CEO Jeff Immelt got a raise that doubled his salary. To add insult to injury although GE is not technically a bank it received $80 billion in TARP funds and 3.2 billion in tax benefits.

These are the facts and they don't square with what the Right consistently spouts as their core principles—because they are outright lies meant to misled us.

The following is an article I read and found to be illuminating and highly recommend it to you. Back at You, Glenn Beck | Common Dreams

"Inside Job": The Gang That Stole America

2011-03-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

Inside Job - Download the FULL Movie by careysanforduj

I just watched "Inside Job", an Academy Award Nominated Documentary, on the Wall Street collapse. It's a stunning look into how this country really operates, and who is really pulling the strings. Hint: Some of the same big-named Wall Street Bankers that helped create the collapse who were in the Bush administration—are still in the Obama administration. There have been no prosecutions, and there never will be. Because, it would expose everybody's dirty hands. I highly recommend that you screen the documentary, and share it as widely as possible. Spoiler alert! There are no good guys—Democrat or Republican—with the exception of some minor players.

With that 20,000,000,000,000 trillion dollars—that's trillion with 13-zeros—worldwide banking collapse, two unfunded wars, and the continued corporate tax splurge give away'—"our so called representatives"— have bankrupted this Nation. And, It really doesn't matter who runs, who's elected, it's all just political theater to keep the mobs at bay, and the charade going until they have looted the country of every dime; including the Social Security "Trust" Fund.

And, if Grover "let's starve the beast and drown it in a bath tub"— Norquist, is to be believed, it was a deliberate act that would make it treason as well.

Their ongoing deception is to keep us at each others throats with divide and conquer tactics—while they and their rich buddies cash out and leave us a third world country—which they are now exploiting at will, as we argue about "the Donald—"I'll screw you"—Trump, or the latest home-schooled, bird-brain, bimbo they can scare up to run to "represent us".

One of their latest attacks came in the form of repositioning Social Security as "an entitlement", with a pejorative connotation. Like they have done with the word "liberal." Recently Republican Sen. Allan Simpson called "the boomers" the "greediest generation", because, they are now retiring and are starting to collect Social Security. As if we want something that in his twisted opinion is the same as robbing future generations.

First—I am sixty-seven years old, and I have been paying into Social Security for over fifty years. I worked my entire life to save that money for the day I could no longer work. Second—on "paper" there is a "supposed" 2.6 trillion dollar "surplus" in the Trust Fund to cover the "boomers." In good faith, we made a contract with our government—that if we faithfully contributed to the Trust Fund—that money would be there for us at in our later years. How does that make me greedy?

The dirty secret is that Mr. Allan—I'll steal you blind and call you greedy"—Simpson won't tell you is in the Reagan years, Mr. Simpson, and his colleagues, made adjustments to FICA contributions that generated a 2.6 trillion dollar "surplus".

It was sold to taxpayers as a fix to "save the Social Security Trust Fund." Perhaps Mr. Simpson forgot that, or maybe because his Senate pension is eight to ten times more—than the average SSI benefit of one-thousand dollars a month—for which he didn't have to contribute a penny of his own money—he just figures screw em.

But, all that extra money was too tempting, and the "Trust Fund" became their private "Slush Fund". With the complicity of the Democrats, they started replacing the money with I.O.U.'s. in the form of U.S. Bonds.

Those bonds are now due, but, after thirty years of corporate largess; two wars; a bank bailout for their banker friends, they have managed to bankrupt this country. There is no money to buy back the Bonds, because they stole us blind to cover their forty plus year binge.

But in the famous words of "the Dick—"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"—Cheney, said, in reference to the outrageous tax cut package, over the objection of the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill. "We won the midterms. This is our due." He fired O'neill that same year. And Allan, you thought "boomers" have a sense of entitlement.

Commentary: There is no Santa—no tooth fairy—no Easter bunny, and you can now add to that list—there is no American representational democracy.

The Financial Inside Job has been going on since the Republican led charge to deregulate the banks began forty years ago. The financial takeover of America is bad enough, but may be even worse is the Political Inside Job by the Right Wing to destroy our democracy—by turning popular opinion against—the government, of, by, and for the people,—they have done irreparably damage with their out right lies. And tactics like stacking the government with their incompetent cronies like Michael—"what hurricane"—Brown at FEMA and then saying see government doesn't work. They create the very examples they use to discredit the government. With the deliberate goal of undermining the electorates trust in it's own government.

They have already destroyed our "democratic republic"—as they no longer represent the interests of the electorate—they only care about where they can get money to keep them in power—that makes this country a plutocracy at best and a fascist plutocracy at worst.

Wisconsin is a very bad sign of things to come. The evidence is mounting that there is an organized right wing junta in key positions in every state in America—ready and willing—when they hold a majority to systematically dismantling of the political structure of this country. They destroying the rights of the working class for the benefit of the wealthy.

Please stand in support the workers of Wisconsin.

Until Americans wake up and start a backlash, like in Egypt—nothing will "really" change except the name of the next ruler they choose.

It's My Money

2011-03-23T17:18:00.000-07:00

PART ONE: The dangers of stupidity and greed.
I was watching a Republican "tea bagger" babble on about how taxation was wrong. At one point, she made the statement that "its my money"! The absolute stupidity of that statement struck me, and illuminated the underlying absurdity of the entire Republican argument, which is often based on a series of false premises; like the one this prattling self-identified tea party supporter had just made. While what she meant is arguable what she said is not.

The false premise that—money—printed by the government, issued by the government, backed by the full faith and credit of the government, was" hers and the government was stealing her money by taxing her.

The utter stupidity of the remark was lost on her. Unless she is printing the money, and she is issuing the money, and she is backing the money with her personal promise of payment, not one dollar of currency is hers. And by the way, if she is printing her own money its—called counterfeiting, and she should be arrested. Counterfeiting undermines the value of the "government's money."

If she had said: its the people's money, she may have had a small point, because in theory,—"We the people" authorize the representatives that "we the people" elect to print the money in name "of the people", for the use "of the people", and back it up with the promise "of the people" to pay the debt it represents against the government "of the people". But in effect she or anyone else that repeats this stupidity is saying that—she—the person—becomes more important than we the people—who are the collective government. Or she may have meant "once I earn the money it's mine. But even that would still make her argument self-serving because it ignores the primary function of money, that "we the people" allow our representatives print on "our" behalf.

Taxation as a legitimate governmental tool of regulation.
The second false assumption based on that same false premise is that—money was meant to be accumulated or be hoarded, and that goes to the heart of, and, undermines the very function of money—money it is meant to be circulated, for the "general welfare" of the people.

Just like a blood clot in the human body is devastating when it blocks the circulation—the brain dies, the heart stops. As with blood, money is meant to circulate—without circulation—the function of money—"to facilitate the exchange of goods and services" grinds to a halt. Just like our stagnating economy, it's not that the government takes too much money out of circulation by taxation, it's that all the money has formed a clot around the very rich who are not putting the money back into circulation. The right say its my money and you are robbing me, you're punishing me, you're hindering me, *ignoring the damage they are doing to the rest of the nation. They have put themselves and a small group above the needs of the whole.

With Madison's' model of government in mind—the necessity of regulating special interests for the general welfare of the Nation as a whole without regard for the the desires of the few—taxation is a legitimate tool and an absolute necessity in light of the growing imbalance that threatens us all.

The Right wings' continual denigration of taxation as "redistribution of wealth" and as such, a socialistic idea to be spurned—underscores their contempt for the legitimate function of government—that canard is both self serving and simplistic. The fact that corporations are lavished with taxpayers money in the guise of tax brakes—to the taxpayers detriment—such as subsides to ship jobs over seas—is another example of their duplicity and their own sense of "entitlement".

It is not the poor who suffer from a sense of entitlement—it is the rich and their own exaggerated sense of importance and superiority. When they point the finger at the poor they are employing one of their favorite tactics—to blame others for a sin, of which they, themselves are guilty.

When they call liberals "elitists" its laughable. Have you ever visited a haven where the rich congregate, like the Hamptons, they are are the embodiment of the words, "the entitled elite." Their standard joke is, to ask each other, "I wonder what the poor people are doing?"

In our history they have plucked and isolated the incident of the Boston Tea Party and twisted it mean to mean "all" taxation is abhorrent and should be abolished. When what the founders and citizens fought against was "taxation without representation". They fought for the right to have a voice in that taxation and a voice in what to do with the revenues in generated.

Above all else the founders were practical men, sophisticated and well aware that a Nation needed taxes to survive and it would be foolish to assume they thought otherwise. That is why—after forming the government—they as the legitimate representatives of the people—decided there was a pressing need to raise revenue to preserve the Union—and why George Washington lead an army to suppress a rebellion over the Nation's first taxation of whiskey.

While none of them enjoyed giving up part of their wealth for the good of the whole, most paid their taxes without complaint as part of their civic duty. What is lost on the modern day "tea bagger" is the founders were not opposed to taxation, but, they were absolutely opposed to the lack of representation in the matter.

The primary function of money is as a tool of exchange.
Circulation of money is the primary consideration for a healthy economy. When one person or party hoards too much money and there is too little in circulation everyone suffers except for the hoarder. The result often is the government needs to print more money which causes its own set of problems. In the game of Monopoly, we all know that when one person controls all the money the game ends but, nobody gets hurt. We live to play another day.

In real life, when someone holds an inequitable share of money, it throws the entire balance of society into turmoil—it means that people get thrown out of their homes and families starve. It—in extreme cases like pre-revolution France, that imbalance can cause a violent backlash. That principle in modern times remains the same and is at the heart of the current revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and a growing number of Middle Eastern countries. The growing chasm between rich and poor.

In an illustration of the current monetary imbalance Bill Maher said: "it's as if one hundred people are sitting at a table and together order a pizza with one hundred slices. One person is faster and hungrier than the other ninety-nine diners and he grabs eighty pieces of pizza in a flash. The other diners look in amazement at him, and ask that he give back at least one piece. Angrily he says: Socialists! Why are you trying to steal my pizza? In effect saying "you eighty greedy bastards can fight over the twenty pieces that I left for you! That's what is happening in this country right now. One percent own eighty percent of the wealth and the eighty percent are left to fight over the twenty percent of the wealth that's left.

The problem is not the "greedy unions" that just want a fair share which is their right. It's that the mega-rich who want an ever increasing share, leaving only scraps for the rest to fight over.

PART TWO: What rights? You ain't got no stinkn' rights!
During that same show, the same right wing "tea bagger"' made another statement that was even more egregious. Which was: "that the right of a union to collective bargaining" is not listed in the Constitution—and by her logic it didn't exist, of course she was stone cold, serious. And I found myself sputtering with outrage that this self proclaimed "pundit" would make such an glaringly ignorant statement.

It called to mind the utter lack of knowledge of the Constitution by another ranting right wing "tea bagger", who, boldly challenged someone else she was debating, "to prove that there was a clause in the Constitution about "the separation of church and state." Mercifully that remark, exposed her ignorance and she lost the election.

If its one thing the founders understood it was the hubris of human nature and in letters; and the Federalist they talked about that very thing. And they wrote the Ninth Amendment that speaks to that very issue. The ninth amendment reads: The enumeration (listing) in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed (understood) to deny or disparage (dispute) others (rights) retained (held) by the people.

To paraphrase the letters they exchanged on the subject in modern English…Madison to Jefferson: Tom, ya know down the road there is going to be some dumb ass that will say that if it ain't listed as a right, it ain't a right, so we had better spell it out for them—that if it ain't listed—it's still a right. Jefferson to Madison: Yup! I hear ya Jim, there are a lot of stupid people out there. I think we'd better add a ninth amendment...Problem is—those right wing "lovers" of the Constitution have either—never read the Constitution or—lack the comprehension to understand it.

So to clarify it even further—A "right" doesn't have to be listed as a "right" to be a "right". Because—in the first place—people's rights are from their creator and are infinite and limitless, therefore its impossible to list them all. And in the second place peoples rights, can't be written in or out of the Constitution by the government—if they do no harm—because they are "unalienable" anyway.

So I'd like to say on the record what I shouted in privacy: "YES IT IS YOU DUMB-ASS! THEY DO!" Too bad I can't make it loud enough for her to hear! But, she probably wouldn't get it anyway! People like her seldom do.

Commentary: The Constitution and its democratic underpinnings were borne out of concern for the welfare of the downtrodden masses that fled from a political system of cruel despotism that was rampant in Europe.

A system of upper and lower class, with the lower being subjugated by the wealthy and privileged and made to fight over the scraps discarded by the wealthy and privileged. Remember "let them eat cake" that sparked the French revolution; it is that injustice and the kind of thinking that is at the root of the enlightenment that also inspired our own Revolution.

In that sense—if— the Constitution smacks of socialism in its concern for the "general welfare" of "the people" without consideration for the privileges of the few—its because it is—at its heart a socialistic document—written before the founders had the words to describe their vision in terms used in modern political discourse.

The primary function of government is maintaining balance between "special interests" so that one group can't injure another by impinging on their rights or imposing their own beliefs. It's primary function is to "regulate" those imbalances where it finds them. Such as abolishing slavery.

The Constitution demands equal treatment and redress of grievances, and if that isn't social justice what is? Yet the reactionary right wing talking heads who are a prevalent fixture on cable, like Glen Beck, who decries social justice as evil and denigrates the very Constitution he claims to love—because it was written to ensure social justice. Is Glen Beck ignorant, stupid, or a "judas goat" spewing his noxious hatred at the call of his "wealthy puppet masters", a traitor who will betray his country and its founding principles for money? By the way, Beck you dumb ass, if you were a real Christian you'd know social justice, was the number one item on Jesus' to do list. Good luck on judgement day!

The founders saw that while all men "are created equal in the eyes of god"—men were not seen or treated as equal "in the eyes men"— especially those who would become modern day self aggrandizing monarchs of superior education and abilities, the greedy, the clever, the cunning, the amoral, the cruel, or the privileged, using their natural advantage of privilege to prey on decent hard working common man.

To listen to the Republican right, you'd think that they, and they alone, are "the only American patriots". The truth is they consider themselves superior, an elite aristocracy in every way and they are superior to the average American and that they, and they alone, are meant to "rule"—not lead or govern but "rule, by right of their superior nature—like the monarchs of old who claimed "the divine right of kings" as their due.

Their actions belie their words. They hate this America Democracy that they "want to drown in a bath tub". Or like G.W. Bush, who called the Constitution 'just a god-damn piece of paper" when confronted by its prohibition on torture.

Inflamed with self-absorbed hubris and with no rules or regulations to rein in their unbridled greed, they trample on rights of good and decent hard working people whom the Constitution was intent on protecting, like Union members right to collective bargaining, or gays right to solemnize their personal partnerships, or a woman's right to decide her reproductive future. Their actions belie their "small government" mantra. They want to regulate others without any regulations on them.

They are fascists in the true meaning of the word. Their greed is what made the banks fail, their greed is what has caused thousands to lose their their homes—in some cases the only wealth the middle class will ever know. Their unbridled greed has caused the suffering of millions of Americans. They don't love this Country they loath it. And their every attempt to stifle its noble vision are the proof of their hatred. They worship at a different altar, that of greed.

"Deficits don't matter!"

2011-03-10T17:50:00.000-08:00

Remember the good old days of Bush and Cheney as they ran up the national debt by billions—and Cheney—famously said to Paul O'Neill: "Deficits don't matter"

"The then, Secretary of the Treasury, O'Neill, was fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, after he also raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said Bush balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. You remember the whole ENRON corporate crime thingy.

In the aftermath, O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due", referring to tax cuts for multi-millionaires, like himself. (While he was at it he threw a few billion dollar no bid contracts to his cronies at Haliburton.) A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
Since Ronald Reagan, a majority of Republican politicians gradually came to conclude, as Vice-President Dick Cheney famously told former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, that "deficits don't matter."

Supply-siders believed deficits didn't matter because tax cuts would boost investment and productivity and that the economy would grow its way out of debt.

The opposite, "starve the beast" faction, epitomized by—"I'd like to drown the government in the bathtub" Grover Norquist—wanted huge tax cuts that would indeed create deep deficits that will then force spending cuts. The fact that both things couldn't be true didn't seem to bother them. Because,"Deficits didn't matter" either way.

Between the two "so called Republican fiscal conservative" factions, that merry ideology played out over eight years, as it called for tax cuts in all seasons for all reasons—and—at the same time massive spending on corporate "entitlements", for all the corporate pigs at the government tit, financed by loans from China, to be paid later by the middle class taxpayers and the Social Security trust Fund that had a surplus of 2.3 trillion dollars."

Luckily their plan to borrow an additional 2 trillion dollars to "privatize Social Security" was stalled by an angry voter backlash when Americans woke up long enough shout NO!

Flash forward nearly a decade later and the American public has put the Republicans back in charge. Even after their drama filled exit from the White House two years earlier—when Bush bailed out Wall Street—the very same Wall Street—that the Republicans had spent several decades deregulating for their banker friends.

Since the mid-terms they have completely transformed themselves into—"Superdebt-slashermen"—each and every born again, Republican radical, Tea Baggin' hatchet man is to a man blaming: the size of government, the liberal elite, "big tax and spending" democrats, unions, the working class, and the middle class for the "debt crisis"—and are hell bent on stemming the financial crisis the backs of the afore mentioned usual suspects.

Hoping you will forget (and apparently you have) that their Republican predecessors—starting with Saint Ronnie—engineered this "debt crisis."

Commentary: The only conclusion I can come to—this Democratic Republic called America—is doomed to succumb to the excesses of a small group of super greedy self-serving plutocrats (that's "very rich fat cats for all you Tea Baggers"), with the help of every corrupt amoral politician that has sold out his constituency, and a mentally lazy and complacent "dittohead" electorate. If “Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance” then the average conservative voter is blissfully ignorant and deserves to live under the heel of the new fascist American aristocracy. They already own all the worlds resources they may as well own your dumb asses too.

BREAKING NEWS: They are still looting the Social Security Fund of its 2.3 trillion dollar surplus, behind closed doors, and they want to blame it on the deficit crisis. The reason they are telling everyone its broke is they've been stealing from it since Reagan came into office—and there is nothing left except a bunch of worthless I.O.U.s—and they now see a away to cover their asses with this phony debt reduction blitz before the public finds out the truth and lynches them. And they have the balls to lecture Afghanistan about corruption. But, then what can we expect from Republicans who—for example—claim their marital infidelity was inspired by their "intense passion" for America. I'm not making this shit up. I can only imagine that their ardor is aroused when the see the exposed backsides of the American taxpayer. I wonder who they will try an hump next? Union workers maybe? Naaaah, they wouldn't do that!

The Price of Apathy Is Losing Our Freedom

2011-02-18T11:09:00.000-08:00

The Federalist No. 10

Titled: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

Was published in: The Daily Advertiser  on Thursday, November 22, 1787Written by James Madison To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union (a political unit consisting of a number of states or provinces with the same central government), none deserves to be more accurately (done with care) developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction (special interests). The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice (of special interests).

He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it.

The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils (by special interests), have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious (superficially plausible, but actually wrong ) declamations (deliver words or a speech in a rhetorical or impassioned way).

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 an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected.

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties (special interests), and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction (special interests), I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction (special interests): the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction (special interests): 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.

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

The second expedient is as impractical as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.

The diversity in the faculties (an inherent mental or physical power) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable (impossible to overcome) obstacle to a uniformity of interests.

The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction (special interests) 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 to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence 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 with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions (special interests) has been the various and unequal distribution of property.

Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction (special interests) in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. 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? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to 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 (special interests) must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? 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 predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling 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. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction (special interests) cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects (regulation).
If a faction (special interests) 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.
It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.

When a majority is included in a faction (special interests), the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction (special interests), 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.

Let me add that it is the great desideratum (prerequisite, something that is needed) by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium (harsh criticism) under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable?

Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
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 (special interests).

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

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. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union (a political unit consisting of a number of states or provinces with the same central government).

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.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.

Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages (votes), and then betray the interests, of the people.

The question resulting is, whether small or extensive (large) republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter (the large) by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the 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 proportionally 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. (The larger the republic the more likely to find a fit number of representatives.)

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters. (The larger the republic the less likely that immoral men will be able to be elected and work their will with determent to those they represent.)

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean (a choice equally far from two extremes), on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives 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 particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater (larger) number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.

Extend (enlarge) the sphere (government), and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.

Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction (special interests), is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.

Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the (size)extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction (special interests) in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

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.

PUBLIUS

Commentary: The new capital R Republicans of today are the factions of which James Madison spoke in his essay. Madison knew that there is safety in numbers, large numbers. The Neo Republicans represent the very factions that Madison warned us about. Their most specious (superficially plausible, but actually wrong ) declamations (deliver words or a speech in a rhetorical or impassioned way)—that we should have a small government answerable to a few powerful men—are according to Madison the very things that have destroyed past republics.

Why would anyone (faction) who claims to love this country—founded on the ideas of enlightened and moral men—twist our history in such a way as to negate the very words of those who wrote the documents upon which the Nation was founded?

Are they ignorant or malicious? To what ends and purpose? So they can as, Grover Nordquist, said "drown our government"—of the people by the people and for the people—"in a bathtub." Who is so anti American they would utter such treason? Yet he was a top Republican adviser to President, George W. Bush, who said The Constitution was, "just a g-d damn piece of paper"—a piece of paper—he had sworn to protect and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

The rich in this country already control 95% of the wealth of this Nation, control the "so called" political debate and have bribed a large percentage of our "representatives" What do they want now? Our Homes? The rate of bank foreclosures in this country is obscene. They use "specious declamations" about issues that inflame passion to divide us and conquer us. Why?
When I am lied to I want to know why? I consider it a slap in the face, an insult of the highest order. In history the rich have always wanted unlimited power to exploit the weak and powerless. America was founded to end that kind of tyranny. Why are you helping them do it?
The people in Egypt rose up in pursuit of freedom an equality, it should be a reminder of what we are losing—as we slip into becoming a nation of serfs ruled by a growing plutocracy.

America:The United States of Plutocracy.

2011-02-16T12:01:00.000-08:00

In American history an indentured servant was typically a young, unskilled laborer who came to America under contract to work for an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their ocean transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of their indenture. They included men and women; most were under age 21, and most became helpers on farms or house servants. They were not paid wages.

There is a new insidious form of this old custom running rampant in America. More and more Americans are so far in debt to banks—that are charging exorbitant interest rates—that they will never get out of debt. America is no longer the home of the free‚—we are shackled by the chains of debt imposed on us by the banks with the total cooperation and full participation of our so called "representatives."

In a 2005 memo to investors of the "plutocratic class" Citibank executives suggested that America already is a —government run by the wealthy for the wealthy—plutocracy and that their new investment strategies should use that information to their advantage to maximize their future profits.

They went on to say that:
"The heart of plutonomy, is income inequality. And Societies that are willing to tolerate/endorse income inequality, are willing to tolerate/endorse plutonomy. These ends were accomplished by capitalist friendly government's and tax regimes, deregulation, free trade, and globalization that re-arrange's global supply chains with mobile well-capitalized elites and immigrants, greater financial complexity and innovation." Remember credit swap defaults were so complex that even Harvard educated traders were at a loss to explain them. They went on to say: "Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Plutoparticipant. Why kill it off, if you can join it?" "In a sense this is the embodiment of the "American dream"

Their main fear was that it could all end if the people ever woke up and voted out the people who are the guardians of the plutocracy. "The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing, off-shoring or in-sourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs. Those being undercut are losers in the short term. While there is evidence that this is positive for some workers it is also clear that high-cost substitutable labor loses."

"Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich. We see plenty of examples of the outsourcing or off-shoring of labor being attacked as “unpatriotic” or plain unfair. This tends to lead to calls for protectionism to save the low-skilled domestic jobs being lost. This is a cause championed, generally, by left-wing politicians."

Commentary: Its time to bring their fears about a "peasant" backlash to fulfillment. I urge you to boycott their banks, quit buying at Wal-Mart, form credit unions that give interest free loans, and vote out every Republican or Democrat that supports the financial exploitation of America. Call for the nationalization of the Banks starting with the Fed. Abrogate all free trade treaties that exploit this nations labor force. Tax corporations and the mega-wealthy. Remove all tax breaks for all so called "American" global corporations that ship jobs overseas.

Its time to take back our country.

The Bigger the Better

2011-02-08T09:48:00.000-08:00

The Republicans obsession with a small un-intrusive government—so that their real constituency the uber-rich can work their will in economic affairs without consequence—on one hand—flies in the face of their intrusive micro management of our personal freedoms, that are in direct conflict with our human rights as spelled out in our Constitution—on the other.

They railed at any idea that businesses should have any meaningful regulations that safeguard against a collapse of the banking system while paying their fair share of taxes, and at the same time they were "enraged"—that the banks needed to be bailed out—when in fact, the bailout was orchestrated by them for their friends on wall street—after they led a decades long campaign that gutted the regulations that had held banks in check for decades, and when democrats tried to restore sanity and reform they voted against those reforms to a man. Enraged, really?

Yet those self same avowed small government shills have no problem interfering with a woman's right to control her reproductive life, or denying the rights of gays to legalize a union with the person they want to spend their lives with, or hampering the free speech of someone who wants to burn the flag as a protest against the excesses of our government and its destructive policies abroad, or suspend habeus corpus for the purpose of torturing those they deems "terrorists" or insinuate that this nation is a "christian nation" which would be quite a shock to the Founders, who deliberately called for separation of church and state in the first amendment, or spying on its citizens without a warrant. And now they want to abrogate the 14th amendment in the state of Arizona by denying citizenship to people born in this country whose parents are not citizens.

All amendments it seems are fair game to them except for the 2nd amendment which gives their more fanatical and increasingly unstable "ditto-head" followers the impulse to shoot the representatives of the opposition on sight—because they have incited them with their hate-filled rhetoric—much like the Nazi incited hatred of the Jews, liberals and gays prior to the take over of Germany.

To say that Republicans are opportunists and use peoples fears as political fodder to divide us—is to give opportunists a bad name. They are far worse. Their agenda does real damage to the Constitution and undermines our freedoms.

They have twisted history, lied, cheated and have stolen elections. This is not a new political scenario—undermine the government at every turn while exerting greater and greater control over peoples personal lives. The Nazi did it in the 1930's and 1940's and unless we are vigilant the new American fascists will do it here as well.

Contrary to popular opinion—the threat is not from the liberal left, but from the fascist right.

The founders were clear that a big robust government is the best defense against any one party or faction trying to take control and work its will for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many and spelled it out in the Federalist #10.

The Republican small government mantra is diametrically opposed to that wisdom and is a big lie—told in order to subvert the Constitution and the government that stands between you and their predatory natures. Ask yourself, If markets are the best most efficient way of producing wealth and stability—as they claim—why do they fail so often? In truth, the markets are a ponzi scheme run by rich men who think nothing of robbing you blind, because they have no allegiances to this country—only their own greed—why do they ship jobs overseas? Because they put their profits above your welfare! Why do they rail at paying taxes? Because they put their profits above this nation! A small government leaves us weak and defenseless against the powerful and the rich who would exploit us.

They could care less about you, jobs, gays, the flag, or abortion they use those issues to turn you against your own self interests.

Commentary: The Nazi used the German people in a similar way and in the end destroyed them and their nation. The problem is this time there won't be an America that comes to the rescue. We will have become what our fathers and grandfathers of the "Greatest Generation" fought against.

Does Size Matter?

2011-01-18T13:36:00.000-08:00

The current crop of so called, tea bagging, neo-conservative, Republicans and their views—are in truth libertarian views—that would trample the rights of many. They have rewritten history with slick marketing, and blatant lies—none more damaging to our Democratic Republic than—"the size of our government is too big."

These Special Interest driven, Libertarian theories, are more Darwinian in nature and predatory in execution—a "survival of the fittest" mentality that preys on the weakest and most vulnerable. They exalt in their hubris and greed and protect themselves and their special interests by persuading congress with large campaign contributions, into privatizing and deregulating our government. The net result was banks could prey on the people with predatory lending, exorbitant interest rates and service fees as examples—forcing this nation into near bankruptcy. And then unabashedly, they're bought and paid for congress, stood firmly as a block against the Democratic efforts to re-establish financial reform regulations. They are the worst fear of the founding fathers coming true.

The founders saw the establishment of government as a matter of practicality—its establishment sprang from the belief that the (virtuous) people could and should govern themselves and the bedrock foundation of government, should be based on absolute moral and civic virtue. In other words the absolute necessity to do what is morally right for "promoting the general welfare." They were driven by the ideal that the government should be a neutral arbiter of what was just and morally right. Impartial to a fault.

However the founders were torn by the reality of the human nature at its absolute worst—and whether the ideal they envisioned—a government of the (virtuous) people, by the (virtuous) people, and for the (virtuous) people—was achievable.

Their careful inclusion of the intricate system of checks and balances, which we now take for granted was their best effort to ensure that those ideals would survive the onslaught of a minority or majority of corrupt, self serving men. That fear and apprehension was best expressed in The Federalist #10 by James Madison, writing under the pseudonym of Publius—he expressed his fear that "the greatest danger to a democratic republican form of government was the tyranny of a minority or of a majority faction." In today's terminology a faction would be a special interest group, who either as a majority or a minority would put their own interest above what is just and right for either another group of citizens or even the greater good of the nation.

What Madison said about the size of Government.

Madison recognized that a small democracy cannot avoid the dangers of majority faction because, "small size means that undesirable passions can very easily spread to a majority of the people, which can then enact its will through the democratic government without difficulty. He then makes an argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” (representatives) to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader. The voters have a wider option. In a small republic it would also be easier for the candidates to fool the voters, while in a large one, harder."

Madison goes on in favor of a large republic, and explains that, "in a small republic there will be a lower variety of interests and parties, so more frequently a majority will be found. The number of participants of that majority, will be lower, and considering they live in a more limited territory, it would be easier for them to agree and work together for the accomplishment of their ideas. While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it harder to find a majority. Even if there is a majority it would be harder for them to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are spread out in a wider territory."

The fact that Madison's view was adopted as the majority view—that a large powerful robust government is the best protection against the corrupt self serving nature of man—is evident in the Constitution, as it was written, and flies in the face of the lie that our government is "too large."

Commentary: Our founding fathers did discuss the size and tone of the government, and knew that size does matter. The bigger and more robust the better. The Republican attempts to privatize and deregulate the government is nothing short of treachery. And makes a mockery of their so called, "love for the Constitution" and phony patriotism, when they are steadily trying to undermine our government at every turn.

"Hate Speech and Incitement to Violence"

2011-01-16T06:38:00.000-08:00

The violent attempted assassination of a Congresswoman Gifford in Tucson Arizona is an obvious result and precursor to the Right's escalating hatred of all things progressive. The Right backpedaled quickly disclaiming any connection to their inflammatory rhetoric, but make no mistake the seeds have been planted in the minds of the easily persuaded gun-toting, "dittoheads" and the pot is about to boil over. The incitement to violence by hateful speech is defined as, any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. What could be more hateful then putting a bull's-eye along with the name of the person targeted and where they reside.

This is an article from CommonDreams.org—reprinted in its entirety here—echos many of the same conclusions I have come to after much thought about the political climate in this country.

Published on Friday, January 14, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Is Fascism Lurking?

by Danny Schechter

Fascism is one of those words that sounds like it belongs in the past, conjuring up, as it does, marching jack boots in the streets, charismatic demagogues like Italy's Mussolini or Spain's Franco and armed crackdowns on dissent and freedom of expression.

It is a term we are used to reading in histories about World War II--not in news stories from present day America.

And yet the word, and the dark reality behind it, is creeping into popular contemporary usage.

Radical activists on the left have never been hesitant to label their opponents with this "F word" whenever governments support laws that limit opposition or overdo national security or abuse human rights. Government paranoia turns critics paranoid.

One example: writer Naomi Wolf forecast fascism creeping into America during the Bush years accelerated by the erosion of democracy, writing:

"It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here."

Wolf feared Americans couldn't see the warning signs:

"Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognize the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have."

Now, those bells are now being rung by John Hall, an outgoing Democratic Congressman from upstate New York. His fear of fascism has less to do with repressive laws and militarism than the influx of corporate money into politics, swamping it with special interests that buy influence for right wing policies and politicians.

"I learned when I was in social studies class in school that corporate ownership or corporate control of government is called Fascism," he told the New York Observer. "So that's really the question-- is that the destination if this court decision goes unchecked?"

Reports New York's Observer, "The court decision he is referring to is Citizens United, the controversial Supreme Court ruling that led to greater corporate spending in the midterm elections, much of it anonymous. In the wake of the decision, Democrats tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would have mandated that corporate donors identify themselves in their advertising, but the measure failed amid GOP opposition. Ads from groups with anonymous donors were particularly prone to misleading or false claims."

Hall said the influx of corporate money in the wake of Citizens United handed the House of Representatives to Republicans. "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

Many in mainstream politics who understand that big money can dominate elections although not in every case share Hall's fears. In California, two well-known female candidates from the corporate world raised millions but still went down in defeat.

So money alone is not the be all and end all of a shift towards a red white and blue brand of fascism. Other ingredients are needed and some may be on the way-like an economic collapse, defeat in foreign wars, rise in domestic terrorism and the emergence of a right-wing populist movement that puts order before justice and wants to crush its opponents

Some argue we have just such a movement in the Tea Party although other critics focus on the rise of the Christian right that promotes fundamentalist politics in the name of God.

The Tea Party is not just after Democrats; it has started a campaign against the liberal Methodist Church. It is not internally democratic either with no elected officers or set of by by-laws. It seems to be managed and manipulated by shadowy political operatives and PR firms, financed by a few billionaires who support populism to defang it.

Already militias are forming because of fears of immigration, and there is also concern that if unemployment remains high there is likely to be more violence with police forces understaffed because of government cutbacks. Gun sales went up after the recent violent incidents in Arizona.

The erosion of economic stability with the rise of foreclosures and the shredding of social services is already turning a financial crisis into a social one.

We already have sharp partisan divide and inflation of hateful rhetoric with vicious putdowns of the President and condemnations by members of Congress calling him corrupt, even a traitor.

According to set of the characteristics of fascist nations, there is "a disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

"In place of human rights enemies are turned into scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists." This process is already far along in the USA.

Among the classical characteristics of fascism is a shutting down of debate and a focus on the state--which in our country is controlled by lobbyists and private interests. Wall Street and the military-industrial complex have far more clout than elected officials.

In the past, during the depression, there was a plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was exposed and neutered. Could something like that happen again?

Maybe it doesn't have to, what with hawks already in control of Congress, major media outlets, the military and poised to slash the power of unions and curb progressive social programs including public education.

Several writers believe that if and when fascism comes to America it will be packaged in a friendly form tied to beneficial advertising slogans and public interest messaging. It will be sold, 1984-style as being unavoidable, even cool, and in our best interest.

Louisiana Senator Huey Long, a mesmerizing agitator, once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism."

Mediachannel’s News Dissector Danny Schechter investigates the origins of the economic crisis in his new book Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal (Cosimo Books via Amazon). Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Commentary: A reader of this article on CommonDreams.org, asked a question of another poster who had made this observation: "Wars and military expansion can go on for about 7 years before they start costing more than they contribute to the economy." The posters response in part was: Q. We've been at our wars for nearly 11yrs now, when do we stop? My response was: A. When they have bankrupted the country and panic sets in, after people realize how dependent they are on credit which is no longer flowing. We are the frogs in a slowly warming kettle. I believe that the massive tax cut for the rich, two wars, the part D corporate welfare bill, and the dubious last minute collapse of the financial system, was a deliberate way to skim trillions of dollars out of the economy and assured the Radical Right would get another crack at imposing an even more drastic authoritarian regime when the country devolves into open conflict. Its closer than you think. Fascism is not lurking in the shadows anymore—it has found it's scapegoats, the left and all things liberal—and it is rearing its ugly violent hate filled head here in America—and is about to devour this Democratic Republic.

A Passing of Angels...Anne Lind September 10, 1922 - December 25, 2010

2011-01-03T10:45:00.001-08:00

Anne (Dullea) Lind passed away on Saturday, December 25, 2010 at the Medical Center in Reno, NV at the age of 88.

As a teenager, I became best friends with Anne's son, Kevin. What stands out in my memory was how Anne's eyes lit up when anyone approached her, the warmth of her smile would embrace you even before she hugged you.

Her son, Kevin, became like a brother to me, and Anne my surrogate mom. In the years after graduation, over time and distance, our contacts became less frequent. But, Anne was faithful, and every year we received her Christmas Letter, with all the news that had happened in the previous year, it followed us like a thread, and remained a constant connection, that often brought back cherished memories I had shared with her family.

I remember one Christmas Letter in particular, she sent an article about my maternal grandfather Michael Fitzgerald, who I had been named after but had never met. That was Anne...thoughtful, kind, and generous with her time and affection. My wife Shellie became concerned when we didn't get her letter this year and felt in her heart that something must be wrong.

Smart, funny, bright: Anne won many contests with her skill as a writer. I don't remember what the prizes were, or how many, but some were esoteric to say the least, and she poked fun at her self if you made too much of her prowess. And she would regale you with the time she won a cow and 500 pounds of butter, or some such odd tidbit. And then she'd smile. She loved to ambush you with her humor. The butter is my invention, but, I think she did actually win a cow.

She was devoted to her husband, Clarence, who was the neighborhood fix-it man. He was from an era when a man's basement and garage were his absolute domain. Clarence could...and did... repair almost any item he came across. He is the epitome of a gentleman. Quite, unassuming, I know, that he was Anne's rock. Steady and patient he doted on Anne, and she on him. If Anne was my surrogate mom; Clarence is my surrogate dad; and Ed, my older brother. I love them all.

The last time I saw Anne and Clarence was the day before they moved to Reno to live with Ed and Irene. The first thing she said with a big smile was, "You were on my bucket list." It shocked me to hear that, but as it sunk in, I was honored to be among one of the last people she wanted to see before she passed.

I didn't say it then, but, Anne and Clarence, you were at the very top of my bucket list too.
Love Mike

An Irish Funeral Prayer

Death is nothing at all.
It does not count.
I have only slipped away into the next room.
Everything remains as it was.
The old life that we lived so fondly together is untouched, unchanged.
Whatever we were to each other, that we are still.
Call me by the old familiar name.
Speak of me in the easy way which you always used.
Put no sorrow in your tone.
Laugh as we always laughed at the little jokes that we enjoyed together.
Play, smile, think of me, pray for me.
Let my name be ever the household word that it always was.
Let it be spoken without effort
Life means all that it ever meant. It is the same as it ever was.
There is unbroken continuity.
Why should I be out of mind because I am out of sight?
I am but waiting for you, for an interval, somewhere very near, just around the corner.
All is well. Nothing is hurt; nothing is lost.
One brief moment and all will be as it was before.
How we shall laugh at the trouble of parting, when we meet again.

by Henry Scott Holland

The Big Lie: What's Wrong With This Picture?

2010-11-28T00:23:00.000-08:00

When the ratio of debt to income is out of balance in our households, we either need to raise the income level by getting a part time job that gives us the ability to service the debt or cut our debt by reducing our spending—in a perfect world we try to do both at the same time. The same is true of any organization public, private or government.

Here's the problem with the current so called National Debt Crisis—its not going to be cured by the Republicans' NO NEW TAX Plan, because it eliminates one half of the ability to solve the problem. They claim that by raising taxes on the wealthy that the economic recovery will stall. When Bush cut the nominal tax rate for the wealthy and simultaneously increased spending by several trillion dollars he forgot that someone has to pay the bills. Every dollar he spent on a needless war in Iraq and a Part D drug program that benefited the drug companies—was a dollar we didn't have and had to borrow because the wealthy sure has hell weren't going to pay for it. They were getting filthy rich with no-bid war contracts, but, what fun would all those big profits be if you had to pay taxes —I'll wrap my big fat capitalist ass in the g-d damn flag but somebody else can pay for the g-d damn war.

On top of everything else—he also signed the Republican bill that deregulated the banking industry. Fast forward to today ten years and trillions of dollars later and we have had a, "come to Jesus economic crisis". So, here's my question if cutting taxes is the answer to keeping the economy in a sustained recovery—why did the economy fail in the first place?

In other words if it didn't work when they implemented the tax cut and the economy failed so miserably—why will extending the tax cuts work now. Two words—it won't. The big lie is, extending the tax cuts will save the economy. It will not—it will have the opposite effect. Remember the trickle down theory; when the rich get really stinking filthy rich the benefits will eventually reach all Americans. Bush senior called it voodoo economics when Reagan proposed it and it still is voodoo economics today.

The Republicans are singing a one note song—that frankly I don't understand how anyone with half a brain could fall for. I guess no-one is really paying all that much attention, at least it didn't look like it this last election cycle. The Tea Bagging Rabid Republicans took their victory as a sign from the gods of hubris and greed that they have been given carte blanche to gut every social program in government while extending the entitlements for the rich. What is truly amazing is that a recent post-election poll showed that over fifty percent of Americans—like most of the the Health Care Reform Bill—which is what the the Republicans claimed was their basis of their victory—a ground swell of anti Obama Care sentiment. WTF were Americans thinking?
What is particularly galling is that this morning two proposals were introduced to break the dead lock over the tax cut extensions, both were defeated by a minority that blocked their debate by a closure vote. An idiotic Senate rule that blocks even the discussion of a bill unless it receives 60 votes.

And on top of that, in a, the American middle-class can go to hell vote—The Republicans said no to two million unemployed American families who are losing their unemployment benefits unless you give tax breaks on every dollar of income to 375 thousand families that make over a million dollars. Even David Stockman Reagan's Economic Advisor said that the extension of the tax cuts is economic suicide:

Here is an excerpt from a recent interview:
IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.
More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

Commentary: The main reasons a Democratic Republic fails is that the electorate are uninformed or misinformed and fail to exercise their voice by voting. If you didn't vote you should be very ashamed. If you were swayed to vote against your own interests by the swill the Republicans were peddling—you should enroll in a remedial course for critical thinking. If you were just to lazy to get your ass to the polling place you should relinquish your citizenship and move somewhere else, there are millions of immigrants that would do a hell of a better job than you at being an American and practicing their civic duty. If you didn't vote because you were pissed at the President for his shortcomings—go f%*k yourself because you just f%*k'd everyone else that isn't an egocentric p$@?k.

The Rise and Fall of the American Republic

2010-10-12T16:42:00.000-07:00

We are slowly, but surly, being stripped of any meaningful voice in our government.
From the introduction of electronic voting machines*, that can be easily manipulated and programed into giving false results—and that are impossible to verify (they leave no paper trail)—to the creation of bogus misleading "Grassroots Citizens Groups" that are bought and paid for by corporations" that demonize of our government who are bent on privatizing every function of our government for their own financial gain—to the ability of corporations to sway our fundamental right to choose who represents us with ads...that represent no one, but some unnamed special interest.

Recently, I saw an that attack ad on a democratic member of the house, paid for by the Republican National Committee. It's hook was, "Earl Pomeroy is not "our" representative anymore." Having been advertising for forty plus years I recognized the hyperbole of that statement. The ad was made in a different state by people that have never lived in North Dakota, funded by the RNC, so in a very real sense he never was or could have been "their" elected representative. Yet their misleading message implied that this was the considered opinion of the majority of North Dakotans who had elected him to represent them in successive terms. Had they been wrong? Who were these nameless minions of discontent? What sudden revelation informed them that Good ol' Earl had betrayed his fellow North Dakotans? The point is, this is the kind of garbage that passes for political debate in America, when we allow unfettered financial intrusions into local politics.

The Assent of Special Interests and Decline of the Individual American Citizen.
The banking system failure is a prime example of the duplicity of the "right" and the corrupting effect that special interests have on our politics. Special interests (banking lobbyists) bought the votes to do away with the Glass Segall Act—which had protected us since the 1929 banking collapse—from banks becoming monopolies at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer. Special interest groups bought votes to allow the country to be privatized and deregulated at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer. Special interest groups bought votes to build an obscene corporate welfare system that allows corporations to out source American jobs and get paid for it with gargantuan tax breaks at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer. The outcome? Through its own hubris, by the time the banking system failed catastrophically, it had become so powerful its collapse would bring down the entire system at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer.

Who engineered the deregulation debacle through Congress over the fourteen successive years they were in power, beginning with "Saint Ronnie"? The Republicans with their 1994 misleading Contract With America. It should have been titled "Contract With the Multi-National Corporations of the World".

Keeping in mind that more honestly retitled document— and the Republican agenda—the Republicans began to systematically dismantle scores of regulatory safeguards and appoint a rigid right wing majority to the Supreme Court who recently decided to allow all corporations—both American and Foreign, the Supreme Court did not see fit to differentiate between the two—to plow as much money as they can raise into American elections, making for a an extreme change in the future of American politics and not for the better. Since that ruling there have been two developments that are alarming.

1. Karl Rove's American Crossroads Group will plow another $4.2 million into eight key Senate races, including Nevada, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
2. Associated Press just reported that national Republicans are making a massive $2 million TV buy to try to topple Democratic champion Barbara Boxer. They're hoping a tidal wave of attack ads can wash away Boxer's lead over failed HP CEO Carly Fiorina.

What is at Stake?
The very idea that this nation was founded on is at stake: One person-one vote has been turned on its head the Supreme Courts ruling—allowing corporations to influence our elections out of all proportion—is another nail in the coffin of this failing American Republic. In other words, American's right to elect representatives who truly represent their interests and promote the general welfare, has been usurped by private corporations, who narrowly promote their self interests, which means their profits and their ability to privatize our government into oblivion.

Its not whether it can be done, its how will it be done in America. The history of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy followed a similar pattern in the prelude to World War II. Their methods were to create fear and discontent over the looming financial crisis, manufacture a scapegoats to vent those fears upon; turn the average citizens concerns into fanatical followers, fuel their hatred, point out their predetermined scapegoats, appointed themselves as the saviors by making powerful alliances with German industrialists, make claims of racial superiority, and a start preemptive war, one that consumed the entire world. It was called Fascism and its still alive and prospering here in a America. The recipe is the same and as Herman Goering stated at his trial in Nuremberg: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Substitute gays, liberals, and commies for Jews, and you have your scapegoats, throw on the fuel of hatred by encouraging the inflammatory rhetoric of fanatical right wing talking heads, add the "War on Terror" that feeds the military industrial complex with billions of dollars, cut the taxes of the richest—which cuts off government revenue; deregulate and privatize ever function of government giving absolute financial power to the richest few; create as much confusion as possible with misleading ads; control the mechanics of the elective process; appoint puppet judges; stifle open descent by labeling your opponents as unpatriotic; liars; traitors, and liberals who want your money thus marginalizing your opponents. I could go on, but I think the point is obvious—these are all things that have been happening and escalating right here in America for the last twenty years.

Let History Be Our Guide.
The history of every period in human existence is fraught with "antichrists" and petty demigods, who want to control everything and everyone, the exact thing that our forefathers fought and died to preserve—our freedom to be who you are without fear from the megalomaniacal tyrants and despots live among us. That is the entire premise of —"a government by the people and for the people". Nothing has changed in human nature since the first human walked on the face of the earth. Trust me, there are still men that want absolute power to control our lives and our deaths if we are no value to them. There are truly evil and cunning men amongst us, that would take away our freedoms, and our lives, if we let them.

We have become victims of our own apathy. We are sheep being led to slaughter by the Judas goats—of the far right on FAUX NEWS. We have been sold out to every corporation with global aspirations. China owns us. Who sold us to them? We have been seduced by false patriots wrapped in the the American flag, the pied pipers of commerce have sold us lock-stock-and-barrel.

We have forgotten that—"we the people"—are our own government.
That is until and unless we are duped into giving it away to the greedy selfish among us who could care less about you and I—in a word to special interest groups that pump out malicious propaganda that would make a Nazi-like Joseph Goebbel's blush with envy. We are being lied to and manipulated—by the rich and powerful—into hating one another with false issues, that they use to divide us—a hint: substitute gays for Jews; burning the flag; "American Values"; These are not real issues they are code words that divide us. They are sound bites meant to inflame us and diminish our ability to make sound rational choices—while special interests steal our heritage and the legacy of the founders. It is true that the founders hated the idea of government, but knew in their wisdom that government was needed to protect us from the powerful, cunning, greedy among us. It is true that the founders disliked taxes, but knew they needed revenue to make this country an economic marvel. Washington even put down a rebellion that protested a whiskey tax. We have forgotten the lessons of previous generations who admonished us that a "nation divided can not stand." We have forgotten that a well informed public is the only guardian of our true liberties and is exercised by our individual right to vote. We have forgotten and neglected our right and duty to be active in our own governance, a right that our forefathers won for us with their blood and their treasure. Benjamin Franklin may have set that duty in the clearest light when he replied to a woman that asked, "What have you given us?" He replied, "a Republic, if you can keep it madam?"
The Anger in American politics is real and justified.
We've been lied to and hoodwinked by elected leaders, but I believe that the current anger is terribly misdirected by the same self serving bastards that created this mess. They have employed every dirty trick to stall and discredit the current administration, all the while not even acknowledging their own culpability in the creation of the disaster. But they are now saying just trust us, we have more of the same failed policies by refocusing the anger, they have manufactured in a slight of hand performance worthy of Houdini. It reminds me of my childhood when one of my siblings, or I, would create chaos and then sit back with a smirk enjoying the infliction of punishment on an innocent party. The problem is this is no childhood game of misdirection the real consequences are the Decline and Fall of this Republic, which too many good men have died to preserve.
A sacred trust has been given to Us.
The founders trusted that as free men and women, we could by our own mind and spirits, govern ourselves free of tyranny and despots. Unless we become involved and awaken to the real game being played we will forever relinquish those rights, and be enslaved by the rich who think nothing of our god given right to be free and full participants in this nations future.

I urge you strongly to inform yourself, if you are a true Independent, as I am, please consider the following and ask yourself:

Q. Who has cost this country more jobs? Republicans or Democrats?
A.

http://politicalirony.com/2010/02/06/jobs-lost-bush-v-obama/

Q. Who's lying: the Bureau of Labor statistics, or The Republicans?

Q. Who has stacked the Supreme Court with politically motivated Judges through twenty years in office?

Q. Why did the Republicans lead the fight to block financial reforms after they brought this country to the brink of financial collapse?
a) Their motives were prompted by real political principals and policies that were proven to be incorrect. And, they are sorry.
b) They have sold out?

Q. Why has the "loyal opposition" blocked appointments of critical government positions "carte blanche"?

Q. Why did the "loyal opposition" block bills from even coming to the floor for honest debate on a whole range of issues such as?:
• Small Business Tax Relief: which generates 80 to 90 percent of American Jobs
• Campaign Disclosures: which would let the American public see who is behind their
misleading attack ads;
• BP Liabilities: which should be held accountable for a disaster of their making;
• Block Circuit Court Appointees: who aren't fascists enough, in other words anyone that
doesn't agree we their right winged ideologies;
• The Defense Bill: which funds wars they started and in which our sons and daughters are dying;
• Corporations That Out Sourcing American Jobs: and then receive huge tax benefits at our expense;
• Emergency Unemployment Benefits: For the people they put out of work;
• Housing Relief Package: For people who are out of work and can't pay their mortgage;
• Taxing Windfall profits of Big Oil: who are gouging the American public and being subsidized to do it;
• Ban Foreign Interests from Meddling In American Elections: which would save the integrity of American elections;
• Alternative Energy Bill: which would create American jobs;
• Federal Support for Scientific Research: Medical research made this nation the envy
and a Medical Mecca for the world.

They blocked over one hundred bills, even those that had broad bipartisan support and contained many "supposed" Republican ideals. My only conclusion is they will do everything in their power to sabotage the present administration to make it look incompetent and America and be damned—until they are in back in power again.

P.S. "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"
*The decisions to allow electronic voting for the most part, resides in the hands of each individual State under the purview of the Secretary of State of each State. Is it by "coincidence" that a large number of the states that allow the practice of electronic voting have Republican Secretaries of State, and the companies that manufacture the electronic machines are owned by Republicans who derive a huge financial benefit providing the machines that are stealing our elections. Do your own research: How many Secretaries' of State are Republican?

Commentary: George Washington set an example for American Public Service when he refused another term in office,—with even some suggesting he be made a king—if his precedent is a guide then there is something profoundly wrong with people who covet power so desperately they will sabotage "our" government and cling to their failed policies at the expense of everyday Americans.

Sources:
Wonk Room » ANALYSIS: Senate Republicans Block Over 100 Bills That ...
United Republicans Block Campaign Disclosure Bill
Republicans block Democratic Sunday voting plan | Politics Extra
Republicans Block Effort to Raise Oil Spill Liability Cap - Roll Call
Republicans block Obama's 9th Circuit nominee | News Blog from ...
Senate Republicans block defense bill authorizing military ...
Opposing Views: House Republicans Block Medical Help for 9/11 Heroes
Donklephant » Blog Archive » Republicans Block Infrastructure ...
Reid Upset After Republicans Block COBRA Benefits Extension ...
Pelosi Statement After House Republicans Block Passage of Tax ...
Republicans Block Passage of 9/11 Responder Aid Bill | Public ...
Republicans Block Plan To Ease Filing Requirements For Small ...
t r u t h o u t | Senate Republicans Block Heating Aid Bill
Nation & World | Republicans block bill that would restrict use of ...
Republicans block bill to tax companies that ship jobs overseas ...
Reuters AlertNet - US Republicans block small business plan in Senate
Senate Republicans block bill designed to encourage domestic job ...
AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Senate Republicans Block Bill to Curb Outsourcing
Senate Republicans Block Campaign Finance Disclosure Bill ...
Republicans Block Oil Spill Commission From Having Subpeona Powers ...
Senate Republicans Block Debate On Campaign Finance Bill
Republicans Block Gays-In-Military Reform | The Onion - America's ...
Think Progress » With Just 40 Votes, Republicans Block Debate Over ...
Senate Republicans block Wall Street financial reform for second ...
Republicans Block Reform — Again. Can Their Obstructionism Help ...
Republicans Block Consideration of Housing Relief Package in ...
The Gavel » Blog Archive » Republicans Block Passage of the 9/11 ...
Senate Republicans Block Campaign Finance Bill | 89.3 KPCC
Republicans Block FISA Talks | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Republicans block Senate energy bill yet again - 04 Aug 2010 ...
Republicans block Senate bid to extend benefits for jobless ...
» Republicans Block Medicare Payment Fix Liberal Values
Senate Republicans block vote on DREAM Act proposed by Harry Reid ...
Senate Republicans block movement on two bills to spur renewable ...
Republicans Block Liu's Judicial Nomination : NPR
Republicans block bank-reform bill - MarketWatch
Senate Republicans block BP investigation | MNN - Mother Nature ...
Assembly Republicans block labor contract for state government ...
In The Senate, Republicans Block But The Democrats Just Run ...
House Republicans Block Bid to Increase Federal Support for ...
Republicans block small business lending bill in Congress ...
Senate Republicans block committee hearings again - TheHill.com
Senate Republicans Block Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil Companies ...
Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - SourceWatch
Republicans Block Measure to Ban Foreign Meddling in U.S. ...

America And Its Christian Roots: The Treaty of Tripoli

2010-09-30T14:37:00.000-07:00

Commentary: There is a continuing attempt by the far right to undermine the foundations of this Nation by calling America a Judeo-Christian Nation. They site dubious sources and quote their personal opinions as well as those of theologians who are anything but impartial. They use this manufactured history to deny rights to minorities and sew their narrow view of how this nation should be governed. It is insidious and pernicious. Here is a comprehensive treatise that debunks most of the myths about "America and its Christian Roots". The Treaty of Tripoli is a little known document that in Article XI unequivocally declares that America is not a Christian Nation. It was initiated during the last term of George Washington, ratified by Congress and signed into law by John Adams.

This post is in its entirety a reprint written by Jim Walker.

Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

by Jim Walker

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of christian congregations."

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

George Washington

Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

Thomas Jefferson

Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

John Adams

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

James Madison

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Benjamin Franklin

Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."

In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

Thomas Paine

This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

The U.S. Constitution

The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.

The Declaration of Independence

Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli

More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.

Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.

Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers
Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli

Common Law

According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."

The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.

Christian Sources

Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs. But statements of beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about Christianity as the source of the U.S. government.

There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church and State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain "some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson introduced a bill for the Statute for Religious Freedom which became Virginia law. Jefferson designed this law to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia's or U.S. Government law.

Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words "under God." Not until June 1954 did those words appear in the Allegiance. The United States currency never had "In God We Trust" printed on money until after the Civil War. Many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the word "God" inscribed in stone, automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without understanding the Framers Deist context.

In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."

Conclusion

The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.

Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian theocracy to the government. If this ever happens, then indeed, we will have ignored the lessons from history. Fortunately, most liberal Christians today agree with the principles of separation of church and State, just as they did in early America.

"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"

-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Bibliography

Borden, Morton, "Jews, Turks, and Infidels," The University of North Carolina Press, 1984

Boston, Robert, "Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, "Prometheus Books, 1993

Boston, F. Andrews, et al, "The Writings of George Washington," (12 Vols.), Charleston, S.C., 1833-37

Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., "The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799," Houghton Mifflin Company: Published for the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union, 1925

Gay, Kathlyn, "Church and State,"The Millbrook Press," 1992

Handy, Robert, T., "A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada," New York: Oxford University Press, 1977

Hayes, Judith, "All those Christian Presidents," [The American Rationalist, March/April 1997]

Kock, Adrienne, ed., "The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society," New York: George Braziller, 1965

Mapp, Jr, Alf J., "Thomas Jefferson," Madison Books, 1987

Middlekauff, Robert, "The Glorious Cause," Oxford University Press, 1982

Miller, Hunter, ed., "Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America," Vol. 2, Documents 1-40: 1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931

Peterson, Merrill D., "Thomas Jefferson Writings," The Library of America, 1984

Remsburg, John E., "Six Historic Americans," The Truth Seeker Company, New York

Robinson, John J., "Born in Blood," M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989

Roche, O.I.A., ed, "The Jefferson Bible: with the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas Jefferson," Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1964

Seldes, George, ed., "The Great Quotations," Pocket Books, New York, 1967

Sweet, William W., "Revivalism in America, its origin, growth and decline," C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1944

Woodress, James, "A Yankee's Odyssey, the Life of Joel Barlow," J. P. Lippincott Co., 1958

Encyclopedia sources:

Common law: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, "William Benton, Publisher, 1969

Declaration of Independence: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.

In God We Trust: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.

Pledge of Allegiance: Academic American Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, Grolier Incorporated, Danbury, Conn., 1988

Special thanks to Ed Buckner, Robert Boston, Selena Brewington and Lion G. Miles, for help in providing me with source materials.