Barack Obama, Karl Marx and You

The debate over whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist is beginning to gain some traction with the frequent references by Sarah Palin and John McCain to Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth around”.   The media consensus is that attempting to brand Obama as a socialist is counter productive because the American people do not consider it important and the Democratic Party is able to relate it to “name calling” and “dirty politics”.  The problem is that most Americans do not recognize socialism when they are confronted with it.

Karl Marx identified socialism as the stage between capitalism and communism that follows a revolution by the proletariat.  In classic socialism, the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers.  As an economic theory, socialism is over two hundred years old.  During that time, hundreds of variations have developed around the world.  Today very few, if any, economies meet perfectly the classic definition.  Most economies are a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

In spite of the fact that there are hundreds of different varieties of socialism, all of them rest on a relatively few basic principles.  In the modern world we live in today, there are two principles that identify the socialist philosophy: the distribution of wealth and state control of private property.  It is the exact opposite of capitalism which rests on the principles of wealth accumulation and owner control of private property.

Socialism operates as a parasite on the body politic.  It takes the earned wealth of the productive members of society and redistributes it to the less productive members until all the accumulated wealth is dissipated.  If unchecked, the process continues until all members of society, with the exception of the ruling elite, are living in deprivation and poverty.  Average citizens are eventually reduced to a state of servitude to the state.

The lifespan of socialist systems vary according to the amount of wealth to be redistributed.  On average, a system dominated by socialism seems to last about fifty years before it collapses in economic disaster.  Mixed economies such as those in Western Europe and North America last a little longer because the capitalist parts of the economy keeps producing wealth even as existing wealth is being dissipated by the socialist segment.  The rise of socialism in America can be dated from about 1930 which means we are living on borrowed time.

The primary vehicle by which socialism has advanced in America is the system of progressive taxation.  Taxes are used by Congress to accomplish three goals.  First is the constitutional purpose of raising monies to pay for the legitimate functions of government.  However, taxes are also used for two purposes that are definitely not authorized in the Constitution.  One is for social engineering where tax incentives are used to encourage behavior desired by Congress and tax increases on behaviors Congress wishes to discourage.  The other is the purely socialist function of redistributing income and wealth.

The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to levy taxes for the purposes of carrying out the enumerated powers of government and requires that they be evenly apportioned among the several states.  The Sixteenth Amendment allowed for the collection of taxes on income and repealed the requirement that they be evenly apportioned among the states, but it did not authorize the use of those taxes for purposes other than those enumerated in Article 1.  While it is true that socialism cannot survive without progressive taxation, it is equally true that socialism in America cannot exist when the U.S. Constitution is followed.

Americans have become so accustomed to progressive taxation they no longer consider whether it is constitutional, and they never consider the fact that it provides the only foundation for socialism in our system.  In fact, between forty and fifty percent of Americans seem to embrace socialism as the best economic system.  No other explanation can be given for Barack Obama’s current poll numbers.

An Obama presidency could very well represent the interim stage between Capitalism and Communism foreseen by Karl Marx.  A vote for Obama is a vote to ultimately live under a Communist Government.  Consider this as you cast your vote on November 4th.

Obama’s Campaign of Corruption

Barack Obama and the Democrats are running one of the most corrupt campaigns in history.  They are getting away with it through the complicity of the media and the hesitation of public figures to speak candidly concerning this election.  Many of us have been writing for years about socialism in the Democratic Party.  However, few nationally known personalities, political or otherwise, have been willing to risk the criticism from the media that follows.  Accusations of “McCarthyism”, “racism”, “gutter politics” and “the politics of personal destruction” are just a few of the terms used to silence those who would speak out.

Only within the past few days has John McCain and Sarah Palin tentatively raised the issue of socialism in their campaign rallies.  Even then it is used only to describe Obama’s plans to “spread the wealth around”.  As democrats like Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others become more open about their socialist philosophies, the obvious facts are becoming harder to overlook or deny.  Barack Obama is a socialist in the mold of Saul Alinsky.  He has been tutored and groomed since childhood for the position he now enjoys.

Evidence of these facts is becoming more available daily.  Internet publications such as World Net Daily, Newsmax.com,  CNS News, Right Bias.Com, and Discover the Networks.Org are all well respected sources that publish articles almost daily on the subject.  In my last post, “Getting the Government We Deserve”, I pointed out the fact that corruption is always a basic ingredient in socialism.  In this election it is showing up particularly in fund raising and voter fraud.  In both instances it seems to be either denied, overlooked, or glossed over, even by those who ordinarily are thought of as conservative opinion makers and leaders in the conservative movement.

Voter Fraud

For years socialists have been advocating innovations in voting rules to make it easier for those who have the least inclination and the least understanding of the issues to vote.  It has been universally accepted that the more people who vote, regardless of their level of understanding, the better it is for our democracy.  Millions are spent by campaigns and community organizations to “get out the vote”.  Innovations such as “motor voter registration”, absentee ballots, same day registration and early voting have become commonplace.  Any attempts to establish voting standards to insure that voters are legally qualified to vote are met with accusations of racism or charges of “suppressing the vote”.

The most threatening innovations in voting are “same day registration” and “early voting“.  These almost beg to be abused.  Invariably, these lax voting rules are instigated by the Democratic Party.  They sound so reasonable that they are accepted by most people with little thought.  We are beginning to see the results now, as more reports of fraudulent registrations and fraudulent voting begin to surface.

Spearheading the Democrat’s voter registration drives is the socialist front group, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  ACORN is partially funded with millions of taxpayer dollars from earmarks and amendments added to legislation by Democrats in Congress.  During the last several voting cycles the group has come under scrutiny by state and federal prosecutors for election fraud.  They are now under investigation in twelve states, mostly the so-called battleground states.

Barack Obama is no stranger to ACORN.  During the summer of 1992 he was director of Illinois’ Project Vote.  Working in cooperation with ACORN, Project Vote registered 150,000 voters on Chicago’s South Side for the ‘92 election.  His prior relationship with ACORN was from 1985 to 1988 when he worked as director of Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of ACORN.  As Director of DCP he also served as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, an organization that trains Community Organizers.  As a lawyer he represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the State of Illinois to force it to implement “motor voter” registration.

Obama’s experience as a Community Organizer and in voter registration drives has served him well in his presidential campaign.  He has patterned his campaign after the tactics advocated by Saul Alinsky in his book “Rules for Radicals” published in 1972.   Alinsky is known as the father of Community Organizing and his book has become the “Bible” for Community Organizers.  Most of the affiliates that make up the organization of ACORN use the same handbook as the Obama campaign.

Fund Raising

The Obama campaign has raised more than $600 million in donations for the 2008 election, breaking all previous records.   His unprecedented ability to raise funds is regarded with awe by the main stream media as well as many Republicans and conservatives.  The reasons behind his phenomenal success as a fund raiser are mostly overlooked.

Obama represents the best opportunity in the past hundred years for the socialist movement to realize its long sough goal of taking over the government of the United States.  As a result, socialists from all over the world are tempted to contribute to his candidacy.  The Internet not only makes this possible but also makes it easy to hide illegal foreign donations as well as “over the limit” donations from within the United States.

Newsmax.com has published two very informative articles on the subject.  One article deals with foreign contributions and the other with credit card fraud.  While they do not offer conclusive proof, it is hard to come up with alternative explanations for the unorthodox examples they give.  According to Newsmax some 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

One of the clues they give is the number of donations for odd amounts, like $876.09, $388.67, etc.  Donors making contributions to a political campaign invariably make those donations in even amounts: $400, $1,000, or $10 for example.  However if they are making the donations by credit card from a country with currency different than our own, those contributions would show up in the recipients account in odd amounts like the ones above, after being converted to U.S. dollars.

Another gimmick documented by Newsmax for getting around the requirement to report all donations over $200 is the use of “gift cards”.  Gift cards are not linked to any specific name and Obama’s web site is not set up to weed out suspicious donors.  Therefore, a donor wishing to make a $1,000 donation anonymously would only need to purchase ten gift cards for a hundred dollars each and then use those cards to make contributions under the name of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse or any other name.  Since the campaign does not have to report the name of the donor for donations less than $200 there is no way to trace them back to their origin.  Nice gimmick, huh?

There is a good chance that not only will the election be stolen but the government as well.  Unfortunately, if that happens there is very little recourse, since the foxes will be in charge of the entire chicken coop.

Getting the Goverment We Deserve

America has been moving toward socialism for many years.  The irony is that the final steps were taken by a Republican administration and a Republican candidate for President.  Even if McCain wins the election—and I still believe he will—, the damage inflicted on the Constitution and our capitalist economy will take years to repair.  That is assuming there is a will to repair it.

Tuesday, President Bush is scheduled to announce a plan to use some $250 billion of the bailout money to purchase equity in nine of the nation’s largest and most influential banks.  The accurate term for such a purchase is “socialism”.  The President and his advisors spent the weekend huddled with the financial leaders of other socialist economies from all over the world, particularly those from the Democratic Socialist nations of Europe.

Any reservations he may have had about the wisdom of taking such drastic measures evidently were overcome by the support he got from other socialist nations during the course of the meetings.  The selling point to the American people is that the government is only buying limited equity in these companies and not actually nationalizing them.  The prospect is held out that when these ailing companies recover, “taxpayers” will realize a return on their equity investments.

Some super-optimists even believe that in the end, taxpayers will come out with a profit.  The use of the term “taxpayers” is simply to make it more palatable to the public.  Based on the experience with the “peace dividend” at the end of the cold war and other historical examples the only thing taxpayers can reasonably expect to get from their investment is a bigger government and more taxes to support its growth.

Socialism is not a new theory of government.  It has been around for over a hundred years and there is plenty of history in our own, and other countries from which to judge its effectiveness.  Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, and Germany, just to name a few.  The failures in these economies are in direct proportion to the degree of socialists policies utilized by their governments, as are the failures in our own.  By now, one would think we had learned that socialism simply does not work, but there is always the belief that it will work if only the right people are in charge.

Socialism and capitalism cannot co-exist for any extended period of time.  With the demise of capitalism in America, there will be nothing to stop the gradual change to an international “globalism” of the type envisioned by George Soros and his Global Enterprise Institute.  That change would be greatly accelerated by the election of Barack Obama.   At least on that point we cannot say he has attempted to deceive us.  He has made his intentions to push an international socialist agenda well known.

The problem is that most Americans do not fully understand the difference between socialism and capitalism and do not see the harm that socialism brings to the very fabric of our society.  In theory socialism promises social justice, equality and prosperity for all. In practice, it delivers a scarcity of basic needs, soft tyranny, and economic hardship to all except the favored few with proper connections.  All one has to do to verify this is to look at the experiences of other nations where socialism has been in practice for a few generations.

Capitalism promises liberty and opportunity.  What it delivers is up to the individual.  Anyone with intelligence, initiative, and ambition can achieve according to their own efforts, talents, and abilities.  Capitalism offers the opportunity for unlimited success but it also carries the risk of failure when wrong decisions are made.  Socialism has low risk and low to moderate returns.  Capitalism has a relatively high risk with returns limited only by the individual himself or herself.

Another undeniable characteristic of socialism evident from experience, is that it provides a breeding ground for corruption.  That is because it has no moral foundation on which to build a stable society.  The first principle of socialism is wealth redistribution.  That in itself is an immoral principle since it takes, by the force of government, the fruits of labor from those in society who produce and redistributes it to the slothful, lazy and ineffective non-producers.  It is not by accident that the decay of moral standards in our own country parallels the infiltration of socialist principles into our government and society.  The practice of fortifying our homes and cars with hi-tech locks and alarms, and the reluctance to wander out at night in certain neighborhoods is a relatively new phenomenon.

I grew up in homes where the doors were seldom locked and friends and neighbors often did not bother to knock when they came calling.  As late as the 1950s entire families would routinely take blankets to Lincoln Park, on Chicago’s lakefront and sleep out overnight, unmolested, to enjoy the cooling effects of the lake breeze.  That, of course, was before the widespread use of air conditioning, but it was also before the rise in crime and immorality.

We had crime, violence, vices and all the other negative things that accompany the human condition, but they were rare in the lives of most Americans.  It was not until the principles of socialism and communism began to be introduced into our institutions wholesale, that our culture began to change dramatically for the worse.  Anyone whose lifespan of awareness covers the period from 1950 until today will recognize the truthfulness of this observation.

We cannot roll back the influence of socialism on our country in this election, but we can take a stand to stop its spread and hopefully start a reversal of its effects in future elections.  The choice between socialism and capitalism is in the hands of the voters more so than ever before.  If we elect Barack Obama and the socialist entourage that will follow him to Washington, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.  We will have gotten the government we deserve.

John McCain and the Bi-Partisan Myth

The most often stated qualification of John McCain as a Presidential candidate is his ability to reach across the aisle and solve problems in a bi-partisan manner.  This supposedly has great appeal to independent and moderate voters.  The evidence given for this is usually campaign finance reform and energy legislation co-sponsored by McCain and Democrats Russ Feingold and Joseph Lieberman.  Many if not most voters, weary of the Congressional wars of the past few years, seem to welcome this as a definite positive.

During the campaign, McCain has been preserving his ability to work in a bi-partisan way by studiously avoiding any specific criticism of Congress.  In attempting to identify the root causes of the financial crisis, for example, he blames “Wall Street” and “Washington”.  These broad terms are not sufficient, and only add to the animosity felt by many people against “the rich” and “government”.  Obviously, not everyone connected to Wall Street and not everyone in Washington is Corrupt.

Wall Street is simply a “label” used to designate our financial markets.  Only certain members of those markets are responsible for the current crisis, those who deal in sub-prime mortgages.  Among those, the most culpable are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Both of these institutions are government sponsored and operate subject to the guidance of Congress.  Both have been run primarily by members of one party for years, the Democrats.  This is a well documented historical fact that cannot be denied by anyone other than blatant partisans.

During the campaign, McCain often uses the politically safe, “Washington is broken” cliché to reinforce his “reformer” image.  At times he may even go so far as to implicate “Congress”.  However until this past Thursday, he has avoided mentioning any Congressional wrongdoers by name.  It could be that he is simply following the advice of Jesus to “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitation”. (Luke 16:9)  In case he loses the election he, no doubt, wishes to return to the Senate and resume his role as the “maverick” with the ability to “reach across the aisle”.

This bi-partisan image may serve his needs in the Senate, but it is costing him the election.  If he wins it will be due to voters rejecting Barack Obama and not because of a strong desire for the leadership of John McCain and certainly not because of his bi-partisan image.  Throughout its history America has always had a fiercely partisan government.  That’s the way the Founders set it up, either intentionally or unintentionally.  It may be unpleasant to many, but it is necessary for our government to function as intended.

In studying the literature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries there is no doubt the Founding Fathers would have preferred a non-partisan government.  They often warned against the dangers of “factions” or partisanship.  However they established a government that requires a partisan political system.

The system of checks and balances required by our Constitution is perhaps the single most important factor in our becoming the strongest, and one of the most enduring governments in history.  In the arena of elective politics it is our two party system that preserves the system of checks and balances that keeps the government functioning for all the people.  The partisanship of each party prevents, or at least, lessens the excesses of the other.  Our unique method of electing the Chief Executive through the Electoral College rather than a straight majority vote of the electorate preserves the two party system.

More than two strong political parties would transform our government into a de facto parliamentary system rather than a republican system.  Since the election of a President and Vice President requires the majority vote of the Electoral College a multi-party system would more often than not throw the election of the President into the House of Representatives, resulting in a Chief Executive elected by the Legislature rather than the people.

In America the balance of power has always been between government tyranny and individual liberty.  For the first hundred years individual liberty held sway.  During the twentieth century the pendulum of power moved decidedly to the side of government tyranny thanks to the socialist policies introduced during the reign of Franklin Roosevelt.  Pure democracies always lean toward tyranny, either through the tyranny of the majority, or more likely through a ruling class of aristocratic elites, which is why we were setup as a republic.

In our own history, the Democratic Party has always been the party of government tyranny, grounded in its ideological beginnings in the Federalist Party of Adams and Hamilton.  For a hundred and seventy years it was the party of slavery and segregation.  Although the organizational history of the Democratic Party is generally traced to the one founded by Jefferson, there is no doubt it is the ideological descendent of the Federalist Party founded by Alexander Hamilton.

Just as the Democratic Party of today shares the big government philosophy of the early Federalists, the Republican Party, particularly the conservative wing, shares the love of liberty and the Constitution, espoused by Jefferson’s republicanism.  You can think of the political life of America as a continuum with republicanism, liberty and constitutional government on one end and democracy, socialism and tyranny on the other.  We are today somewhere between the center and the socialist side of that continuum.  If America elects Obama in November, we will move dramatically closer to the socialist side, based on his campaign promises.

If by chance we elect the McCain-Palin ticket, we may have a chance to slow down the advancement of socialism.  The last thing we need however is a President working in a bi-partisan way with the socialist wing of the Democratic Party.  The contest between Democrats and Republicans is a contest of ideology and principles.  Bi-partisanship is based on compromise, and principles can never be compromised and survive.  In the instances where McCain has attempted to work with Democrats in the past, the result has always been a net loss for the American people and the Constitution.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made it clear over the past two years they are never willing to compromise until they have been soundly defeated, and then they merely withdraw in order to regroup and try again.  It would be good if we did have a non-partisan government that always put the good of the country above the welfare of the party.  Until someone invents a new kind of politician however, that is not going to happen.  Until then we need a President and Republican Senators and Congressmen willing to stand on the side of republican principles, the people and the Constitution; and not be taken in by the myth of bi-partisanship.

The McCain-Obama Non-Debate

I watched the first hour of Tuesday night’s debate on TV and listened to the last half hour in my car.  In doing so, I missed the visual of the only three-seconds of “straight talk” in the entire debate.  That was when the moderator complained to someone who had evidently gotten between him and the teleprompter, “you’re blocking my script”.  Since I was listening and not watching, I don’t know who he was talking to, but I thought it was a good metaphor for the whole performance.

Few things in life are more boring than watching two politicians who have perfected the skill of talking for hours without expressing a single original thought, while attempting to mislead their listeners into believing they have been enlightened.  Several prominent words and phrases which I call “thought stoppers” were used during the debate.  These are words intended to relieve the listener of the burden of having to think about the facts underlying them and are usually a sure sign of deception.

The two that stand out most for me in terms of their irritability factor are “regulation”, a favorite of Obama, and “bipartisan”, a favorite of McCain.  These are only slightly less irritating than “eight years of failed Bush policies”, “let me be clear”, “my friends”, and “reaching across the aisle”.

Obama’s reference to McCain’s support of deregulation is outright subterfuge.  Democrats are trying frantically to blame Republicans for the crash in the housing market that eventually led to a global economic meltdown in order to deflect scrutiny of their own actions in the matter.  One way of doing this is to convince the American people that the economic crisis we are currently experiencing is due to deregulation of the financial markets.  This approach works well with the Democratic agenda and hopefully, in their view, keep voters from understanding the truth.

In terms of political philosophy, Democrats are always in favor of more regulations and Republicans are always in favor of less.  Neither approach would have prevented the financial collapse because the problem was not brought about by either too much or too little regulation.  That does not mean that regulations are not important, just that they are not relevant to the problem at hand.

A degree of regulations is both necessary and constitutional.  However, the courts and Congress have used the regulatory powers of Congress in ways that were never intended by the Constitution.  Government regulations have been used by power hungry politicians to expand the control of government over individuals, businesses and states since the founding of our nation.  Beginning with the Federalist Party of Adams and Hamilton and Continuing to the Democratic Party of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, there has been a continuous increase in the ability of government to regulate the economic prosperity of the country and the behavior of its citizens.

The constitutional basis offered by both Congress and the courts for this proliferation of government power and the corresponding decline in individual liberty is the “commerce clause” of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants to Congress the power…“to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Since the introduction of the New Deal by Roosevelt, the application of the Commerce Clause has bee expanded to include any and all business activity.  Its meaning has also been changed by liberal politicians to include a congressional authority to manage as well as regulate.  Our current economic difficulties are not caused by over-regulation or under-regulation, but rather, by the attempts by Congress to manage the housing and financial markets to further a socialist agenda and the corruption that always follows in the wake of socialist actions.

The very nature of business makes the government intrinsically unqualified for its management.  It is this reality that causes the ultimate failure of all socialist economic systems.  The almost universal desire for power by most politicians makes them blind to this fact.  Consequently, we now find ourselves faced with the illogical political decision that the only solution for the financial crisis we find ourselves in is to expand the management authority of government.

The myth of government’s ability to manage the economy has been cultivated by the liberal, socialist movement to the point that we are on the verge of turning over to government the management of our energy needs, healthcare, education, and automobile manufacturing.  There is no reason to believe the results will be any different for these than it has been for the housing markets.

If we are to prevent the same fate befalling America that has befallen other socialist and communist nations, we need major reform of Congress and a return to constitutional government.  This will not be an easy task.  As Judge Robert Bork observed in a paper titled “The Scope of Congress’s Power to Regulate Commerce”;

“There is no possibility, today, of adhering completely to the original constitutional design. Such a daring plan would require overturning the New Deal, the Great Society, and almost all of the vast network of federal legislation and regulation put in place in the last two-thirds of the twentieth century. It appears that the American people would be overwhelmingly against such a change and no court would attempt to force it upon them.”

The word commerce, as defined by Webster and used by the founders referred only to the transporting, buying and selling of goods.  It certainly did not extend to the manufacturing or product design and marketing of manufactured items.  Furthermore, the power to regulate only applied to goods actually sold or intended for sale in interstate commerce.  It did not apply to goods or commercial activity that “might” find its way into interstate commerce.

Jon Roland of the Constitution Society in his treatise “Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause” wrote:

“As originally understood, interstate “commerce” did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a “substantial effect” on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.”

Much has been written and said about the proper functions of government in regulating commerce.  None has been more concise than the principle expressed by Thomas Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address of 1801.  In his definition of good government, he listed a government,

“…which shall restrain men from injuring one another, [but] shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”

The only legitimate regulation of commerce is that which is designed to protect the public from the avarice of greedy and unscrupulous men or from the intentional sale of hazardous products.

We got where we are today through the deliberate incrementalism of the socialist movement in America over the past century.  If we are to survive as a free nation, we must incrementally roll back the progress of socialism in our economy and in our society.  The best place to start is by the reform of Congress which has become the focal point of the socialist movement.  This cannot happen until voters break themselves of the custom of returning the same representatives to Congress each election, for selfish and unpatriotic reasons.

In my next post, I will share some thoughts on bi-partisanship.

Thomas Jefferson Advice to Sarah Palin

One fact on which everyone can agree is that our nation is in crisis. In fact, this election cycle has been a series of crises: The illegal immigration crisis, the healthcare crisis, the energy crisis, and most recently the housing and financial crises. The one crisis we do not read about in the mainstream media is the real one: the crisis in government.

At the bottom of all the crises we face as a nation there is a crisis of government that has given rise to all the rest. The American people have lost control of their government or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have surrendered our control at the ballot box in exchange for the empty promises of our favorite politicians. In the process we have given up a major portion of our liberties. Moreover, we seem poised to vote away those we have left in the coming election.

We have faced threats to our liberties many times in the past. Almost without exception these threats always come when we allow our elected representatives in Washington to set aside or ignore the restraints placed on government by the Constitution. Just this year alone Washington has obligated taxpayers to an additional $2 trillion in debt on top of the $10 trillion already owed. If we add the cost of unfunded mandates that total climbs to over $50 trillion.

Without some type of government reform, these debts will never be repaid. The numbers just do not add up. Our GDP has been running about $14 trillion annually. That will probably go down over the next year or two as we recover from our current financial difficulties. Our rate of spending is somewhere close to $500 billion more than we take in in revenue each year. Exact figures are impossible to obtain before they have been politically adjusted.

Any reform of government must start with a reform of Congress. That reform must involve a return to the Constitution. Congress has always been at odds with the Constitution because it limits it powers. Over the past few decades, thanks to the liberal takeover of our education system, too many Americans do not understand the concept of “limited government”. Therefore they allow Congress to expand the tentacles of government into every nook and cranny of our lives with impunity.

If we are to believe the consensus of mainstream media, the next Congress is going to be the most liberal one in memory. It is easy to despair of any possibility of meaningful reform of Congress in the next few years. Fortunately, the prospects are not as bleak as they seem. This is not the first time in history we have been faced with similar attempts to undermine our constitutional form of government.

The first and perhaps, the most serious effort was attempted by the Federalists, the first political party established by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton in the early years of our republic. In order to combat this effort Thomas Jefferson and James Madison formed an opposition party, the Democratic-Republican Party, referred to at the time simply as republicans.

In his memoirs Jefferson relates a conversation he had with President George Washington on October 1, 1792. During the conversation he shared with Washington his misgivings about Hamilton’s view of the Constitution.

“He [Washington] then expressed his concern at the difference which he found to subsist between the Secretary of the Treasury and myself, of which he said he had not been aware. He knew, indeed, that there was a marked difference in our political sentiments, but he had never suspected it had gone so far in producing a personal difference, and he wished he could be the mediator to put an end to it.”

“That he thought it important to preserve the check of my opinions in the administration, in order to keep things in their proper channel, and prevent them from going too far. That as to the idea of transforming this government into a monarchy, he did not believe there were ten men in the United States whose opinions were worth attention, who entertained such a thought.”

“I told him there were many more than he imagined. I recalled to his memory a dispute at his own table, a little before we left Philadelphia, between General Schuyler on one side and Pinckney and myself on the other, wherein the former maintained the position, that hereditary descent was as likely to produce good magistrates as election.”

“I told him, that though the people were sound, there were a numerous sect who had monarchy in contemplation; that the Secretary of the Treasury was one of these. That I had heard him say that this constitution was a shilly-shally thing, of mere milk and water, which could not last, and was only good as a step to something better. That when we reflected, that he had endeavored in the convention, to make an English constitution of it, and when failing in that, we saw all his measures tending to bring it to the same thing, it was natural for us to be jealous; and particularly, when we saw that these measures had established corruption in the legislature,…”

In a letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush dated January 16, 1811 Jefferson relates a dinner conversation at Monticello between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton concerning the English constitution.

“While he [Adams] was Vice-President, and I Secretary of State, I received a letter from President Washington, then at Mount Vernon, desiring me to call together the Heads of departments, and to invite Mr. Adams to join us (which, by the bye, was the only instance of that being done) in order to determine on some measure which required dispatch; and he desired me to act on it, as decided, without again recurring to him.”

“I invited them to dine with me, and after dinner, sitting at our wine, having settled our question, other conversation came on, in which a collision of opinion arose between Mr. Adams and Colonel Hamilton, on the merits of the British Constitution, Mr. Adams giving it as his opinion, that, if some of its defects and abuses were corrected, it would be the most perfect constitution of government ever devised by man. Hamilton, on the contrary, asserted, that with its existing vices, it was the most perfect model of government that could be formed; and that the correction of its vices would render it an impracticable government. And this you may be assured was the real line of difference between the political principles of these two gentlemen.”

In many ways the efforts of the early Federalists to transform our government into a Monarchy resembles the modern efforts by Democrats to transform it into a Democratic Socialist one. Since we are not a monarchy today, it is evident that something happened to thwart the designs of Hamilton, Adams, and the Federalist Party. In researching the constitutional duties of the Vice President, I ran across an interesting passage in a petition to the Virginia Legislature by Jefferson seeking permission to sell off some of his property by lottery in order to pay off debts.

It seems that they were suffering from a decline in real estate values at the time (sound familiar?) and the only way Jefferson felt he could get a fair price for the property was through a lottery which required legislative approval. In the petition, Jefferson offered a recap of his sixty plus years of public service to the young republic. In it we find this revealing and inspiring passage.

“If it were thought worth while to specify any particular services rendered, I would refer to the specification of them made by the legislature itself in their Farewell Address, on my retiring from the Presidency, February, 1809.”

“There is one, however, not therein specified, the most important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portion of my life; to wit, the head I personally made against the federal principles and proceedings, during the administration of Mr. Adams.”

“Their usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, and their majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the republican leaders thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, to perish there as in the last ditch.”

“All, therefore, retired, leaving Mr. Gallatin alone in the House of Representatives, and myself in the Senate, where I then presided as Vice-President. Remaining at our posts, and bidding defiance to the brow-beatings and insults by which they endeavored to drive us off also, we kept the mass of republicans in phalanx together, until the legislatures could be brought up to the charge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myself particularly, placed by my office of Vice-President at the head of the republicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the republicans throughout the Union would have given up in despair, and the cause would have been lost for ever.”

“By holding on, we obtained time for the legislatures to come up with their weight; and those of Virginia and Kentucky particularly, but more especially the former, by their celebrated resolutions, saved the constitution, at its last gasp. No person who was not a witness of the scenes of that gloomy period, can form any idea of the afflicting persecutions and personal indignities we had to brook. They saved our country however.” (Emphasis Added)

This piece of history contradicts popular beliefs concerning Jefferson and the constitutional office, President of the Senate. Popular history has it that Jefferson neglected his duty of presiding over the Senate and spent his term in office in abstention at home at Monticello. I referred to this in my last blog post, “Sarah Palin as President of the Senate”. It seems I was incorrect and owe an apology to Mr. Jefferson.

It should also put to rest the statement by Joe Biden in last week’s Vice Presidential debate that the Vice President has no constitutional connection to the Legislative Branch of government. Which brings me to the purpose of this post. Our best chance of reforming Congress and thus reforming government is to elect the McCain-Palin ticket next month.

Governor Palin has expressed her willingness to fulfill her constitutional duties as President of the Senate, although she seemed somewhat tentative in her answer to this question during the debate; as though she was not sure of the constitutional grounds she was standing on. Her past record of reform in previous offices she has held gives credence to this hope, however.

If McCain wakes up and decides to run against Congress instead of against George Bush there is a chance he could win in a landslide since the approval rating for Congress is below ten percent. He also needs to put more emphasis on putting some tarnish on Obama’s media created image. “Nice guys finish last.”

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend: Thomas Jefferson Advice to Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin as President of the Senate

In Thursday night’s debate Sarah Palin exhibited why many conservatives believe she is the future of the Conservative movement and why she is likely to be the first woman President of the United States after the 2012 elections.  There were many noteworthy exchanges during the debate but to me, the most important one, since it relates to Palin’s function if she is elected Vice President, was the one concerning the duties of that office.

The moderator, Gwen Ifill asked,

“Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?”

The question itself shows both a partisan bias and a deficiency in knowledge of the Constitution.  It implies that Vice President Cheney engaged in extra-constitutional activities in his relationship with the Senate and questions whether Palin intends to do likewise.

Governor Palin: “Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation….”

Senator Biden’s response: “Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”

“And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.”

“The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress….”

The fact is; the office of Vice President was more closely associated with the Legislative Branch than the Executive Branch from 1788 until after the Second World War.  Harry Truman was forced to take on the duties of President in a time of war, due to the death of Franklin Roosevelt, with no experience and little knowledge of important decisions made during the war, including the existence of the Atom Bomb. Following that experience the office of Vice President became more involved in the workings of the Executive Branch.

The first Vice President to have an office in the White House was Walter Mondale, Vice President to Jimmy Carter.

Even though Joe Biden has, on at least six occasions, taken an oath to “defend and protect” the Constitution of the United States, it is apparent from his response that he has little knowledge of what it contains.  He should know that Article I deals with the duties of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch.  Those are found in Article II.

Biden continues, “The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.”

It is this statement by Biden that is really bizarre.  The idea that the office of Vice President is a part of the Legislative Branch was invented by the framers of the Constitution, not Vice President Cheney. Article I assigns to the Vice President the legislative duty of presiding over the Senate.

“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

“The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.”  ~Article I, Section 3, U.S. Constitution

The question then becomes; what is meant by the term “President of the Senate?”  The meaning was so obvious to the Framers they did not bother to define it further.  However, the office of President of the Senate has been so neglected by its occupants and its meaning so changed by custom over the past two hundred years that its constitutional intent has been lost.  Today the office of Vice President is looked upon by its occupants mostly as a possible stepping-stone to the Presidency.  That was not the intent of the Framers.

The universal understanding of the term “President of the Senate” is further demonstrated in the fact that no elaboration on its meaning is found in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers or in other popular writings of the founding era.  To understand the proper role of the Senate President we are forced to go to the Constitution itself and to how the role was understood by those who filled it in the early days of the Republic.

That the office was considered important by the Framers is shown in the fact that it is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution.  Serving as President of the Senate is not just a ceremonial honor bestowed on the Vice President; it is his or her primary duty.  To understand what those duties entail, a good place to start is by looking at the duties of its counterpart in the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House. It is unreasonable to believe the Framers would stipulate an executive officer for the House and not designate a similar position for the Senate. “Majority Leader” is not a constitutional office.

The House has only one officer required by the Constitution.  That officer is the Speaker and is to be chosen by whatever manner the House deems fitting.  The House is given the authority to add other officers and to choose them, as they consider desirable.  The Senate has two officers mandated by the Constitution, the President and the President pro Tempore.  It is permitted to elect its President pro Tempore and any other officers it thinks necessary or desirable according to its own judgment.

The President of the Senate, however, is elected by the majority vote of all the electors of the fifty states and is the only nationally elected officer in the Legislative Branch, a further indication of its importance.  This is fitting since the Senate has “advice and consent” powers over treaties, Judges, Supreme Court Justices, Ambassadors and other officers appointed by the President.  Since all these Presidential actions are national in scope it is proper that the executive officer of the Senate be elected nationally.

Webster’s dictionary defines the word “president” as the “chief executive officer of the United States or the chief executive officer of an organization or corporation.”  The word, whether used in a political sense or a non-political sense, always carries with it the connotation of executive authority.  To attempt to separate executive authority from the term President of the Senate is an unwarranted manipulation of the English language.

This being the case, how then did the office of Vice President become relegated to such an unimportant role in our government as it has today?  To understand this we have to look at the early history of our nation.

John Adams was a prominent revolutionary in the years leading up to the revolution.  He was a strong advocate of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the committee assigned by the Continental Congress to draft it, although the language was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson.  After the revolution he was assigned to a number of diplomatic positions under the Federation and worked closely with Jefferson as envoys to a number of European Countries.

When the new government was formed under the Constitution he ran against George Washington for the office of President and was soundly defeated.  Under the original Constitution, having received the second highest number of votes, he became Vice President.

Adams was a super patriot and a competent Ambassador.  However, as Vice President and later as President, flaws in his temperament prevented him from becoming great in those positions.  He took seriously his duties as President of the Senate and became known for his lectures to the Senate on policy and procedural matters.  While he did not have a vote except as a “tie breaker” he did attempt to influence legislation.

His overbearing and tyrannical manner as President of the Senate brought on a threatened revolt by the Senators near the end of his first term.  Hoping to become President after George Washington left office he moderated his interactions with the Senate during his second term in order not to further alienate his political supporters.

In spite of his leadership role in the revolution, he was an admirer of the English style of government and its customs of nobility.  During his first term as Vice President he became embroiled in a month long controversy over what the proper address should be for the President when he visited the Senate.  He preferred the titles of “His Majesty the President” or “His High Mightiness”.  The more simple title of “President of the United States” eventually won out.

Further evidence of his elitist nature, tyrannical personality and intolerance of opposing opinions came up during his term as President when he signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writings” against the government or its officials. The Act expired at the end of his term in 1801 and Thomas Jefferson, his successor, granted a full pardon to those convicted under this unconstitutional law.

The idea of “factions” or political parties was anathema to the founding fathers.  Their failure to foresee the inevitable rise of political parties as the most practical way of selecting candidates for President and making constitutional provisions for their functions became one of the few weaknesses of the Constitution.  The twelfth Amendment corrected the problem of having the President and Vice President from opposing parties, as was the case with Adams and his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson.  Otherwise, the proper role of political parties was left undefined.

The animosity between Adams, a Federalist, and Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican was so great that Jefferson spent the four years of his term as Adam’s V.P. at home in Monticello writing a handbook on Senate procedures rather than performing his duties as President of the Senate.  Since then the role of President of the Senate has been more or less left up to the individual Vice President with the willing acquiescence of the Senate.  John C. Calhoun, elected Vice President to John Quincy Adams in 1824 and re-elected as Vice President to Andrew Jackson in 1828, was the only other V.P. to take his duties as Senate President seriously.

If Sarah Palin is elected to the office of Vice President and wishes to take on the task of Senate President she should have the support of every patriotic American.  The current role of “Majority Leader” is clearly unconstitutional and is a usurpation of the constitutional powers of the President of the Senate as intended by the Founding Fathers.

The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have acquired powers over time that equal or exceeds the powers of the Executive Branch.  Both have assumed dictatorial authority over legislation to be considered by either house of Congress.  Neither position is accountable to the voters other than those in their respective districts or states although their actions affect the lives and well-being of every American.  Any reforms a Vice President Palin can bring to this unhealthy situation would be welcome.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend:  Sarah Palin as President of the Senate

addthis_pub = ‘jerrymcdaniel’;

Bailout or Socialist Takeover?

The Senate tonight passed the bailout bill rejected by the house on Monday.  In order to win over Republican support a number of “goodies” were added to make it more acceptable to them.  To bypass the Constitutional requirement that all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives it was passed as an amendment to H.R.1424, a House bill to require parity in coverage by insurers of mental health and substance abuse cases.

The Amendment, titled, “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” added over 200 pages to the Bill rejected by the House, including earmarks for Film and Television, wooden arrows for children and litigants in the Exxon Valdez oil spill of a few years ago.  In addition, there were also a number of enhancements for previous earmarks for such items as Puerto Rican Rum, wool research and Auto Racing Tracks, among others.  The House is expected to vote on it on Friday.

The four-hundred-page amendment establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Board made up of the Fed Chairman, Treasury Secretary, SEC Chairman, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director and the Director of HUD.  Primary authority for implementing the new law will rest with the Treasury Secretary, who will have almost dictatorial powers subject to oversight by the board and Congressional committees.  These committees, by the way, are the same ones that were overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to their collapse.

The purposes of the Amendment are described as protecting home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings, while preserving homeownership and promoting jobs and economic growth. In other words, it effectively nationalizes America’s financial institutions including, “banks, savings associations, credit unions, security brokers or dealers, or insurance companies.”

The “package” is filled with legal loopholes that are likely to promote all kinds of mischief.   For example, Section 101(e) prohibits the “sale of troubled assets to the Secretary at a higher price than the seller paid for the asset.”  However, “This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition…”  If I read this right, the buyout of a failing institution by another permits the buyer to unload troubled assets purchased in the buyout on the taxpayers at a profit.  For example, an entity like Citibank can buy out a failing company like Wachovia and then sell off any bad mortgages acquired in the transaction to the Treasury at a profit.

Under Section 103(3), the Secretary may guarantee timely payment of principal and interest on troubled mortgages.  Under this protection a lender may accept otherwise risky mortgages with the assurance that, in the event of default by homebuyer, lender may still recover price of mortgage plus interest.  There is no cost to lender because the insurance premium will be passed on the homebuyer.  This provision, it seems, does nothing to discourage lenders from selling substandard mortgages.

There are other troubling provisions in this bill including “goodies” to environmentalists, tax increases on oil companies, health care provisions and a host of other items that have nothing to do with the “crisis” at hand.  The important thing is that we could all go to bed Friday night in a free market, capitalist economy and wake up Monday morning in a socialist economy.

We have only one day to get the message to our Congressperson that this bill is unacceptable to a free people who love liberty.  I did not emphasize violations of the Constitution because Congress has abandoned any deference to it long ago.

The number of the Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121.  E-mail can be sent through your Congressperson’s website.