Jefferson and Hamilton

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

There is a well known and often commented upon phrase that seems to sadly sum up much of the partisan nonsense that is currently afflicting our elected representatives and their media flacks: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

It appears that given the dearth of intelligent discourse on the pressing matters of state and the imbecilic rancor that exists within the body politic, it is apparent that the aforementioned phrase is more than apropos.

The American people should not accept that status and must demand more.

The spectrum of political ideologies now mandates that the only solution to the nation’s current woes is to ‘reclaim’ America, and ‘return’ it back to the American people. The methodology that is offered as the vehicle for that transition to invoke the framers and the founders and announce loudly across all outlets and electronic soapboxes that their particular political persuasion has some level of birthright to the principles and ideals of our founding fathers, and that were those men of two hundred plus years ago here today they would absolutely endorse the aforementioned political philosophies and governmental solutions.

Rubbish.

The fact that should concern the electorate is that despite the sincerity with which our elected officials make these claims, the fact is that all it does is amplify their ignorance of American history and the glorious manner in which those founding fathers were able to launch the audacious experiment that is American self rule democracy.

To wit:

There could scarcely be more polar political opposites than Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.  Jefferson believed in a strong central federal government for issues of national protection and foreign policy, but that a more agrarian based society with powers granted more to the local governments was the American ideal. Hamilton was a staunch believer that commerce and trade was the true route to a more prosperous America.

In today’s political ideology, Thomas Jefferson would fall more into the classification of moderate Democrat while Hamilton would undoubtedly be the poster child for the conservative movement currently in resurgence.

Yet these two giants of American independence, their views diametrically opposite, understood the promise of America and the need for those entrusted with her success would need to forge compromise.

Thomas Jefferson was appointed by President George Washington to be the fledgling nation’s first Secretary of State. Alexander Hamilton was also requested by President Washington to serve in his first cabinet as Treasury Secretary.

Perhaps those currently holding elective office should take note of Washington’s’ wisdom in choosing the best people for the necessary duties, knowing that in such instances those people will put aside their political squabbles and serve the American people with the best fruits of their industry.

If that wisdom is ignored, as it currently appears, we will no longer prosper and flourish as a nation. We will surely drown in political platitudes.

We owe our posterity the same political courage that was truly best exemplified by our founding fathers, in all their political opposition glory.

James Craig Anderson

(This Weeks Blog is A Personal Commentary)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

James Craig Anderson was murdered on June 26^th, 2011.

His crime was exactly the same as that of James Byrd of Jaspar, Texas back in 1998 and the method of execution was the same – a truck was used to assassinate them both; James Craig Anderson was intentionally driven over by one, James Byrd was intentionally  dragged behind one, tethered to it by a chain.

Their executioners imposed these sentences of death arbitrarily and without a foundation of any legal precept. The names of the killers will not reprinted here, for to give these individuals any further acknowledgement would serve only to embolden those who may come after them.

We as a nation have a responsibility and culpability in these two killings and the far too many similar others that occur throughout this nation.

The specifics of the alleged crimes of James Craig Anderson and James Byrd may vary slightly in nature to others perpetrated around the nation, but in these instances, herein were their alleged societal transgressions.

They were both black.

Their murderers were white, and they felt that gave them sufficient cause to terminate the lives of two fellow citizens, two fellow Americans, a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal.

This is not a ranting diatribe about race; such dissertations are more often than not vapid and pointless requests for universal love and peace; desirable goals to be sure, but rather unobtainable within the current course of human endeavors.

At this point in history, anybody inherently stupid enough to automatically choose hatred for somebody based solely upon differentiations of pigmentation are most probably lost to society and should be outright shunned by society as a whole once their views are given voice. Unless they are acted upon, however, government at any level should not intercede; official intervention within the scope of mere thought is too terrible to contemplate. We must be wary on acting against those whose IDEAS we disagree with; it will shortly be OUR ideas that are under assault.

The real issue here, that our politicians fail to give voice to and which the electorate at large have chosen to ignore, is the fact that ignorance needs only passive avoidance to flourish. Ignorance is the real enemy that must be confronted; an educated mind is not a mind of hatred. Ignorance will breed fear, and fear is the emotion that gets acted upon; be afraid of the unknown and you will invariably attack it. The ability to ask questions about the unknown will automatically disarm it; shed the light of intelligence on ignorance and it will whither and die.

The need for education in all its incarnations must be fostered at the workplace, in our schools, in our communities at large, at our dinner tables. The freest people history has ever known most make freedom the verb it needs to be; not as a dismissive catchphrase word used to simulate patriotism. If we do not keep the body politic healthy by continually educating its mind, we shall perish from the earth.

No American citizen should ever be murderd again out of fear borne by the ignorance of hate.

It must stop.

Today.

The decision is quite literally yours.

May we all make the right one.

9/11

May we together pray that never will we need such service again, but may we also pray that we never lose their spirit of real and true heroism, or surely we as a nation and a people will be lost.

For the 343.

http://youtu.be/dHayXNAuD8A

http://youtu.be/lT6tCQioI9E

Hurricanes & Lessons Learned?

The aftermath of any natural disaster, in this specific case Hurricane Irene, should never be heralded in any positive manner, save the individual heroics of safety and survival, but in this instance this most recent natural disaster can be used as a springboard, a starting point for a necessary discussion on the role of government as perceived and debated between the major political factions within our national government.

The political extremes are pedaling the myths that one side wants the abolition of government; that the other will stop at nothing short of a cradle to grave nanny state with government controlling every minutiae of daily life. This is the current state of the body politic. The American people should be better served and should demand better, accept no less.

It is obvious that both positions are ridiculous and should not be taken seriously, but the issue remains of determining what the role and nature of a centralized federal government should be.

In an instance of natural disaster such as Hurricane Irene there are no other entities that are equipped to handle the relief efforts necessary for the help and protection of people and property. The logistical coordination necessary is grand in scope but methodical in its implementation.  This is an instance where government is both necessary and essential. A well funded and resourced government is the only intelligent manner to cope with these issues. The government should not however be the device wherein people are made whole; personal responsibility, i.e. homeowner insurance, basic safeguards to self and property, is a basic tenet of a free people; acts of God however, can never be planned for in scope. Resulting public interest eventualities though can be properly addressed by government. The fact that this simple formula escapes both of the political extremes is simultaneously sad and comedic.

A corollary to this discussion is that it also shows the idiocy of a balanced budget amendment.

To wit:

Presume that the budget allocation for addressing national disasters is one dollar per year. This year alone, before Hurricane Irene cut her swath of destruction, the excessive snows, subsequent flooding from the thaw, and the earthquake in Virginia that ran the line of the east coast, required that  the federal government spent $1.10. A balanced budget amendment would mandate that something be cut in order to pay for this relief effort. Should we cut back on education, airline safety – once the budget was passed, there would be budgetary necessities to be in balance.

This is not a case for unbridled spending, but rather accepting the fact that Americans have historically been the first with their wallets out to help their fellow citizens in time of hardship. There should be no restraints in place to limit the response to tragedy; it simply is not the American way.

The upcoming elections will determine the direction and scope of our centralized federal government. The American electorate has a simple choice: to choose an effective government that can competently step in to address emergencies brought on by acts of God, or a government that will attempt to provide a claimed panacea, which  in truth is actually more placebo,  for all of life’s hardships.

Both choices come with a cost. One choice is a matter of dollars; the other is the cost of an individuals unimpeded freedom.

Hurricane Irene caused the omission of this weeks post. We will return this coming Monday as usual.

The Tea Party

“… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

The current political playbook instructs readers that should you be a mindless incompetent who wishes to maintain your elected office, deflect examination of your record by turning the focus on a perceived greater threat to American democracy.

In short, spare no opportunity to demonize your political opponents’ as the cause for your incompetence, wrapping your arguments around such phrases as ‘crazy’, ‘unpatriotic’ and any other terminology that cannot be defended: the old canard of asking an opponent a question along the lines of when did they stop beating their wife?

It is that approach to political discourse that has framed the debates and discussions about the emergence of the Tea Party.

With all due respect to the members of that particular political faction, I believe that their rise as a political force has not been properly explained in a manner that can fit into conventional pop culture idiomatic form.

To wit:

The Tea Party of the 2010 elections are the Marx Brothers of their time.

This is not intended as a disparaging dismissal of the party, but rather a defense of their emergence to those who would dismiss them as merely an epithet.

The Marx Brothers, as opposed to their comedic contemporaries and progeny, did not choose to dismantle the societal norm; rather, they accepted the framework that was in place and simply acted within that given restriction. It is when by doing so that the entrenched interests took exception to their actions. They were not the revolutionaries looking to overthrow the status quo; they merely pointed out its absurdity by working within it.

This is where the Tea Party gets its strength and garners the harsh response by the political elite and their media flacks.

The congressional members elected as part of the Tea Party caucus did not undertake a military coup to obtain positions of power. They did not subjugate the United States Constitution; rather they directly followed it. They were legally placed on their respective ballots and by the electoral process rules in effect for all candidates won the election. There was no illegality, no subterfuge, no assault upon the Constitution.

So the question must be asked: what is the level of stagnation in the body politic when duly elected members of Congress can be ridiculed and labeled as crazy because they fairly brought their own ideology to government?

This is a dangerous trend that must be addressed by the American electorate. We must move beyond the entrenched two parties; the elevation to halls of power by the Tea Party is the definition that demonstrates that the nation has begun that necessary realignment away from an entrenched two party system.

Those who oppose the Tea Party have a simple solution – do what they did. If they can make a winning argument to win an election, that is American democracy in action.

Ridiculing the Tea Party is nothing more than a demonstration of ineptitude by their opponents.

Those who garner more votes win elections and are awarded the custodial and temporary positions pf power.

It is as simple as that

Let Freedom ring!

One Million Million

As the budgetary debate continues unabated within the political class and their media flacks, there seems to be emerging a recurring theme that has somehow gone unchallenged.

In the context of finding additional funds with which to use for the operation of government, that new catch phrase being trumpeted has been for “millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share”

It is indeed true that the United States tax code does offer certain and particular tax breaks and advantages to a few select citizens and corporations. On that basis alone, the tax code should be completely overhauled and restructured to insure a truly balanced framework with which to collect revenue. The debate should not be whether or not the government needs to be properly funded; of course it does. The debate should be on exactly what the government should be doing with that specified funding.

The question of ‘fairness’ relative to those aforementioned millionaires and billionaires however is nothing more than class envy and class warfare. Is not America the land where the only limitation on a citizen is their own desire in the pursuit of the American dream? By charging unfairness to those who have worked hard and played by the rules by definition makes that effort seem somehow unfair , bordering on apparent criminality,  to the rest of  the populace who have chosen not to choose a sizeable financial fortune as their particular definition of success. This is as it should be in the world’s foremost democracy. Each man left alone by the government to his own pursuits.

The ridiculous part of this debate of fairness however is that no one seems to have actually done even the most basic of math relative to ‘fairness’ and the national budget.

To wit:

The proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2012 is for roughly 3.8 trillion dollars: to better understand that number, it is necessary to remember that one trillion is a million million.

With that fact, this is how the numbers would work if the millionaires and billionaires paid what some of the political class would deem to be their fair share.

It would be inappropriate to garnish 100 percent of either an individuals or business’ income, so we will ignore those whose wealth is just 1 million dollars. Since the argument holds that millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share, let us use that million dollars as a benchmark, so let us consider a total wealth of two million dollars to be the threshold for this scenario.

It could be safely presumed that those whose wealth exceeds two million dollars would number at about one million entities -personal and corporate.

If we were to confiscate one million dollars from each of those million pocketbooks, we would only acquire ONE trillion dollars. The shortfall of almost three trillion dollars would need to come from the rest of the populace. That redistributed wealth would not fund the government for more than three months and pay nothing towards the national debt.

Of course, once the fact that one million dollars a year was being confiscated from ones wealth, what exactly would the motivation be to succeed and prosper? Those million picked pocketbooks would begin to shrink, putting an even greater responsibility on those who could ill afford to appease the governmental appetite for funds.

The budget process is broken; there are a million reasons why, but one inescapable fact; it must be fixed and brought into balance or the land of prosperity will dwindle and fade into the dusty pages of history.