The 2016 Electoral College results, for ages 18-25, would have been over 500 votes to under 25 vote in favor of Hillary Clinton. I do not know the exact connection between that statistic and this blog but it is what fueled these thoughts. How can 95% of this demographic results be so overwhelming? Especially when the choice was two flawed candidates.

 Education – “Going Fishing” – Its Local

Is ignorance a bad thing?  If one has never been exposed to information, then how can they be expected to know.  A doctor would prescribe a dose of education to cure ignorance. The process may seem simple but it is not. What the good doctor prescribes for both sickness and ignorance has to be approved by a governmental agency. The Food and Drug Administration certifies the medical prescription just as the Department of Education certifies conscription into public education.

The word educate comes from the Latin word educare, which means “to draw out that which lies within.” The educational system should be an active process involving a series of stimuli and a response. In education we distinguish between the two. The stimulus is most often provided by the teacher and the response is drawn out of the student.

The responsibility of the teacher is to present information and the responsibility of the student is to respond to it. In its simplest form, the educational process allows for the teachers to use a variety of tools to draws out raw and honest responses from the students. However, the education process begins after the initial response is drawn out.

It is the dialog, a conversation, created between the two parties that is invaluable. Adversarial positions should be encouraged in order to express all opinions from all sides of the discussion. The exchanging of ideas promotes diversity of thought. Diversity is required in order to explore the topics in depth.

I would be naïve not to think that this process would be free of prejudice. Pre judgment is part of the drawing out and in many cases the information going in. Pre judgment abounds. Pre judgments are generated by geographical, cultural, religious, racial, sexual, economical, basically all environmental and social exposures.

The environmental and social situations we experience are unique to all individuals. Any one or combination of the above pre judgments are the bases of our diversity. It is our differences that impact the processing of information. Pre judgments lead to different conclusion from processing the same information.  After all diversity means different.

Diversity has to be considered in the educational process. Let’s “go fishing”. On the island of Martha’s Vineyard if I am asked by a friend, “do you want to go fishing? “My logical conclusion is that we would be going salt water fishing in the ocean. If this same situation occurred in the North Country of New Hampshire, less that 200 miles away, the conclusion would be different. The going fishing would indicate fresh water fishing in a stream, a river or a lake.

The conclusions are different because they are based upon pre judgments. However, both assumptions are more than likely correct. Why? Because the conclusions were arrived at by two independent, geographical diverse fishermen.

Let’s stay with the fishing venue. Change the question to “what would you need to go fishing?” The most obvious responses by both fishermen would be a fishing pole and some sort of bait. However, if the same question is asked of a commercial fisherman in New Bedford, less than 30 miles from Martha’s Vineyard, the response may be a boat, fuel and nets.

These questions produce diverse responses, yet all of the “answers” are correct. This may cause havoc with the validity of an assessment. To judge the level of correctness of these responses is difficult and can be arbitrary. So who then should be empowered to assess the quality of the response?

Consider this, would the assessment of the fishing responses differ between a Midwestern educator than that of an Atlantic Coast educator? Again, so who should assess the quality of the response? I say the most local educator, the one I know, the one I can call, text, e-mail or even meet face to face. Why opt for a disconnected evaluator?

When a distant assessor is put in charge we lose the local pre judgments and local interpretations. The US Department of Education clearly believes that education from the top down is preferential. This exhibits the arrogance of a governmental agency “we know what is best for you.” theory. The local communities are the patches that make up the quilt of society. Bottom up must be promoted to save the community school.

The true injustice of this system is amplified by the weight that we have assigned to the results of standardized testing. They have become the fare required to take you to the next grade level, a diploma and even the college of your choice. Is this process fair? I say no. It is discriminatory and unjust. We have created a faceless distant bureaucracy to be the gatekeeper in charge of “entry into the club.”

The local teacher, the local administration and the local school board must be independent in order to select the needs and direction of the community. When assessment and curriculum development are controlled locally real diversity of thought is allowed to flourish. Local control is personal and nurtures students not statistics.

Standardized testing selects national or global essential understandings. Whether it is Washington DC or the state, standardized testing is turning local control over to an intervening agency. The priorities of the two do not necessarily reflect the needs of the local community and its neighborhoods. The locally elected school board is beholden to their citizens while state and national boards are beholden a political boss that may change every four years

Think local because, in reality, the community is our only jurisdiction. Teachers of previous generations were valued based upon their ability to define challenging essential understanding. Their evaluations were connected to their ability to draw thoughtful and independent response from their students. An invested teacher is a better teacher.

Standardization is coercive and regressive. Teachers are not only expected “to lead the horse to a designated watering hole” but to enforce their consumption and regulate how to drink. When a central authority is allowed to uses: extortion for funding; compulsory taxes: evaluations; certifications; licenses and accreditations; to “collaborate” with local districts it is clear that our schools have become servants.

Standardization of “truths” and thought become a byproduct of this system. If there is a reward for standard response, then standard processing of thought is controlled. Social justice warriors, conservatives and progressives need to understand its impact. Standardizations lead to a clean and pristine society in lock step with a distant cadence. Whether standardization occurs in education or in politically correct speech it is stifling.  The result is a society void of non conformity. The patchwork quilt becomes a one flavor utilitarian blanket.

A standardized society is destructive. A standardized society is a selective society. Historically, standardized evaluations have been used to justify atrocities. They were misused in the 1920’s by the Eugenics movement. That movement targeted thousands of individuals for sterilization. Nazi Germany took standardized achievement results to the limit, extermination.

95% to 5% is a loud statement. Hell 95% of the population cannot even agree upon the color of a dress. When one’s future is predicated upon appeasing a master the compliant are rewarded while those of independent and critical thoughts are nullified. The safest choice may be conformity but is also the most dangerous.

The Lesser of Two Evils

“There are men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.”(Alexis de Tocqueville) This quote is from his book “Democracy in America” written in 1835. It is as current today as it was in the 1800’s. In 2016, our two party democratic system produced two unprincipled candidates.

My response to de Tocqueville’s observation is that we need to empower responsible people to find those “men(women) of principle”. Our founding fathers actually set up a process in the Constitution that accomplished that, it is called the Electoral College. Unfortunately, we have strayed so far from the original intent of the Constitution those “men of principles” are not being identified as our national leaders.

The constitution set up a government that was a representative republic not a democracy. The founding fathers were not fans of the democratic process. They understood that majority rule could be volatile, fickle and dangerous. To defend liberty, they limited the democratic process in favor of a representative republican process. The citizens would entrust elected official to make decisions for them.

Thomas Jefferson declared: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”  Even the top Federal of the day Alexander Hamilton asserted that “We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”

The sirens of democracy are seductive. Their songs have lured many a nation onto the rocks of destruction with empty promises. The thought that “we the people” could rule by popular vote is attractive and empowering. However, the majority will choose security over freedom, self interest over the principle and nationalism over sovereignty. Consider this, who wins in a popular vote when two wolves and one chicken vote to chose “what is for dinner?”

Fisher Ames (1758-1808) a Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment warned that “the known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” The liberties that the founding father valued so dearly were to be protected by the republican form of government they outlined in the Constitution.

After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Ben Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  What did Franklin mean by this statement? Have we reached the destiny that he feared?  Franklin’s warning makes it perfectly clear that our fore fathers knew that it would be hard work to maintain liberty.

The Constitution’s version of a republic was to empower the “people of the … States”. Democracy turns the power of governing over to an individual, the President, to rule over individuals and states. This I believe is the mind set of many. We elect a President to change the country for better or not.

Our leaders promote democracy as something great and wonderful that should be spread across the world. Public education endorses this concept and it is emphasized in our core curriculum. In reality this misconception keeps us ignorant of the fact that a more democratic process brings us closer to tyranny.  Ill informed protesters beg for a democratic popular vote to elect a shepherd to protect the flock against the evils of terrorism, racism, sexism, and all the other “…isms” out there.

I find it disheartening that most protesters are calling for a further destruction of our republican process in favor of more “democracy”. To eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a popular vote iniative would be a huge mistake. It would be a one giant step closer to a democratically elected Monarch.

It is encouraging that the protesters are calling for a “refusal” to comply and serve a President. But I am concerned that their motives are out of fear. The fear, that is being generated by the media and by the losing party. The fear of a new president is over blown.

The anger of those protesting is misdirected. The calm for the anger is not the other candidate, especially a candidate that in her political career has never opposed a war. The solution is not to change the Electoral College process to a majority rule. The solution is to educate ourselves on the workings of government according to the Constitution.

The role of the President defined by the Constitution resembles an ambassador as much as it does a powerful national leader. There are only a few responsibilities that the President holds omnipotent control over. In the oath he accepts the responsility to: “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. This makes him the chief executor to enforce the laws of the United States and the power to commission all the Officers of the United States to ensure this.

Presidential powers includes being the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the State Militias, “when called into the actual Service of the United States.” This means only in time of war.

He is granted the power, on extraordinary occasions, to convene and to adjourn both Houses in Congress and the power to temporary fill vacancies when the of the Senate is in recess. He is also to be our nations number one “host” to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.

The Constitution describes the duties of the President that are to be approved and vested by Congress. These shared powers include the ability to make Treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. To “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment.

However, the powers of the President have grown with every administration.  The number of Executive Orders, issued by the past two presidents, is outrageous.  The fact that they go unchallenged is proof that we have become numb to the usurpation of power by the Executive Branch. The increasing number of rules, regulations, restrictions, quotas, fees, fines and licenses passed by the Executive Branch’s regulatory agencies are painful and further strip us of both personal and economic freedom.

How would a popular elected President change this? It wouldn’t. The opposite would occur. A popular elected President would increase the powers of the Executive Branch. It would eliminate another safeguard to the distribution of power. The balance of power is delicate, we can not continually grant more power to the President and the Executive Branch.

The energy of those protesting should be directed to the political process that they have the most control, local politics. Think locally, the local level includes the electing of city, town, county, state legislators and Congressmen that emphasis liberty and put principle over party politics.

Solution – The Changes Required

Change #1 – The House of Representative, is the catalyst for change.  A good start would be to make the representation ratio in the House of Representatives meaningful. The Constitution called for one congressman to represent not more than 30,000 people.  From 1789 until 1833, the House of Representatives grew from having 65 members to having 240. The result was that over that entire period, the average congressman never represented more than 60,000 people. In 1913, the House of Representatives was fixed by law (but not the Constitution) at 435 members. The result is that: today there are more than 730,000 U.S. residents per member of Congress. 730,000 to 1 is not a meaningful representation. It must be changed.

Change #2 – The US Senator would be next. In the Constitution the Senators were selected by the States’ legislators. This process ensured that our states would have a say in foreign affairs. On April 8, 1913, the 17^th Amendment, was ratified. The 17^th Amendment made the two US Senators from each state elected by popular vote.

The result of the 17^th Amendment allowed eliminated most, if not all, of the States’ influence in Washington. The more “democratic process” moved the balance of power away from the states and toward Washington DC. President Wilson was the first to explore Washington’s newly granted powers, the Federal Reserve Act, World War 1, Revenue Act (Federal income tax) and the list goes on.

In order to regain influence in Washington the 17^th Amendment must be repealed. I believe this change would open up more discourse into our role an Imperialist nation. It would help to harness the “security and intelligence” agencies that have metastasized and put a halt to our interventionist foreign policy

Change # 3 – The Electoral College is the saving grace of the Constitution. It is the last safeguard to prevent us from becoming a Nation State ruled by an elected Monarch. The Electoral College is state based. The members are selected by the States’ legislators and it is those members that “theoretically” select the President.

This would act to preserve the states sovereignty and be another barrier to protect the balance of power between the three branches. This process described in the Constitution is not being followed. It has to return to the function that our founders envisioned. The electoral members should not be appointed by political parties. The selection of its members must be based upon principle. They need to be independent, non partisan citizens, committed to liberty and state issues.

Final Thoughts

Getting our government under control begins locally. Let us re-empowering the citizens and the states. Congress needs to become more responsive to a lesser number of constituents. The repealing of the 17^th Amendment will re-empower the states in domestic, national and international policies. This would disrupt the power of Washington’s perpetual bureaucrats, neocons and cronies embedded in the “deep state”.

A return the Electoral College described in the Constitution is vital to preserve our Constitution Republic. Allow an independent group of respected citizens, appointed by the state representatives, beholden to their constituents, to select the President.  This process would eliminate many of the pollutants that make the Presidential waters undrinkable; the two party systems, the presidential primaries, self promoting narcissists, national party conventions, the buying and selling of candidates, media pandering, empty promises and lies.

Well respected, independent, Electoral Members, from all 50 states, must be trusted to select our leader. I believe that when we return to this process, principled men and women will emerge. Our current system has failed to produce good choices. How long we will continue to be forced to choose the lesser of two evils? This is the result of a “democratic process” that our founding fathers went to great lengths to avoid.

The U.S.’s #1 Priority is to Mend Russian Relations   Part 2 – Syria

A brief summary of Syria’s recent history leading up to the Arab Spring. The Ba’ath movement took over leadership in Syria after a coup in 1963. This event marked its independence. Since then Syria’s standard of living has risen.  The country’s life expectancy increased by 17 years, infant mortality improved from 132 deaths per 1,000 live births to 17.9, primary school enrollment improved to almost 100 percent of males and 85 percent of females and the adult population literacy rate increased dramatically.

Syria was an independent country with a centrally planned economy. They did not rely on Western economic assistance. Syria was able to improve it’s living conditions and economy largely from aid by the Soviet Union, Iraq and China. Strike one.

In 1979, Syria’s was added to the State Department’s Sponsors of Terrorism list. Primarily due to its support to Lebanese Hezbollah and continued relationship with Iran. It also aided the Palestinian people and their resistance in Israel and maintained close economic relations with Russia. Strike two!

The Soviet Union provided Syria with millions of dollars in loans to build its infrastructure including the Tabqa dam. The dam also enabled irrigation throughout the Syrian countryside and electricity to many parts of the country. Soviet technicians have worked on several infrastructure project. China has invested millions of dollars in Syria to modernize the country’s oil and gas infrastructure. Strike three!

In 2011 Syria became part of “Arab Spring” uprisings. Protests in Syria began after two dictators, in Tunisia and Egypt, had stepped down in a response to the pro-democracy demonstrations in their countries. Syrian protesters peacefully opposed the arrest and mistreatment of a group of young people accused of writing anti-Assad graffiti.

An International Crisis Group reported that Assad first response to protests was to release some of the political prisoners and instructed his officials “to pay greater attention to citizen complaints,” His attempts to pacify the protests were not effective. They were followed by a show of force and an increased usage of censorship.  By the end of April, the situation grew out of his control. The Syrian government deployed troops into the streets to battle with the Syrian civilians. Civilians were killed and battle lines were cast. However, due to foreign interventions and the influx of multiple factions with various motives, the battle lines became unclear.

The Western media represented the Syrian civil war as a “battle for democracy”. The truth is somewhat different. It is a complex situation and has become a battleground for many causes. Including: a war for Syria to remain a sovereign nation: a Sunni caliphate involving several different versions of Wahhabism: a battle for Sunni Islamic dominance between ISIS and various Al-Qaida terrorist organization such as Nusra Front, the “Islamic Front,” the “Islamic Liberation Front,” and the “Ahfad al-Rasoul Brigades: a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia: a Kurdish war for existence against Isis, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq: and just maybe a Turkish attempt to gain back influence that it once held during the Ottoman Empire days.

One could argue that Syrian Civil War has grown into one of the worst humanitarian crisis since the World War 2. Over a quarter million killed, roughly the same number wounded or missing, and half of Syria’s 22 million population displaced from their homes. Syria has become the largest battlefield of Sunni-Shia sectarianism clashes the world has ever seen. The results of this war will probably have implications for the future boundaries of the Middle East.

Russia has intervened on behalf of the Syrian loyalists (Assad) and the United States has intervened on behalf of the “moderate” rebels. The U.S. has “tried” to help only certain rebels, providing arms and training to “vetted” moderate rebel groups. The term “Moderate rebels” is an oxymoron.

This contradiction of U.S. goals has confused the media and the US citizens. America wants Assad to go but we are also fighting ISIS, one of the strongest anti-Assad forces in Syria. The U.S. position defies the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” or does it? How was ISIS formed and how did it grow from a handful of radicals to 100,000 international members? Maybe that question needs to be directed to our allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and then Secretary of State Clinton. The same money sources that funded ISIS “donated” funds to the Clinton Foundation.

Russia’s approach is less sensitive to the differences among rebel groups. Russia has made it clear that it opposes all of them. In September 2015, at the U.N. General Assembly Vladimir Putin made an offer to the United States. He proposed for U.S.-Russian to fly joint airstrikes against the Islamic State and associated jihadists. Putin described his plan to be “similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind.” However, the demonization of Vladimir Putin was well underway and his offer was spurned by Western leaders.

Russia began its military intervention in late September 2015 without the United States. Putin and motives were clear, destroy the rebels, all of them. The Russia’s intervention seriously reversed the jihadists’ advances in Syria.

The US understood why Russia intervened. Secretary of State Kerry said “The reason Russia came in is because ISIL [another acronym for Islamic State] was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus, and that’s why Russia came in because they didn’t want a Daesh government and they supported Assad,” he said in the leaked discussion. Kerry’s comment suggests that the U.S. was willing to risk Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to oust Assad.

However, the US. Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S., rather than seriously fight Islamic State in Syria, was ready to use the growing strength of the jihadists to pressure Assad to resign, just as outlined in the Defense Intelligence Agency document. “We thought however we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him.”

The West has been further infuriated by Putin’s rhetoric. Putin on French TV stated: “Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western partners’ forces? … These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d’Azur, for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same from happening in Syria.”

Now it is Hillary Clinton and the neocons plan to continued to push for a military intervention in Syria in order to promote regime change in Syria.  In the most recent presidential debate Clinton declared, “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria … not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians”.

I am baffled that her statement was not challenged. I get angry at how the Clintons hide their motives under the disguise of humanitarian acts. From Kosovo, to Haiti the Clinton and their foundation, 6% of the money raised going to actual humanitarian efforts, continually deceive the public for personal gain. A “no-fly zone and safe havens sound like good humanitarian acts but they are Acts of War. Both of these strategies require “boots on the ground” to invade, capture and the military control of land in a sovereign country.

For what reason do we need to “gain leverage over Syria and the Russians”? The “democratically” elected Assad, whether you agree with his regime or not, is trying to preserve the sovereignty of his country. Russia is in Syria at the invitation of Assad. If Assad fall who will fill the void of power? Moderate rebels, how did that work out in Libya? ISIS and the Wahhabism caliphate or some other group that makes ISIS and the “moderates” look tame?

The winds of war are blowing, especially in Ukraine and in Syria. Is it due to “Russian aggression” or the military posturing of NATO and the U.S.? WW3 may be closer than expected. The two leading candidates for presidents  are not non-interventionist. Hillary is a “war hawk” and Trump’s position is unclear. Where have you gone Ron Paul?

 

 

Our #1 Priority is to Mend Russian Relations  Part 1 – Ukraine  

Has NATO over stepped its boundaries or is Vladimir Putin and Russia determined to dominate its neighbors and menace Europe. NATO and the United States claims that it is Russia that is attempting to expand its influence in Eastern Europe and beyond.

NATO has accused Russia of causing unrest in Ukraine and “land grabbing” of Crimea. Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, it is Russia that is attempting to protect ethnic Russians and is being pushed into a corner.

Russia has also claimed that the United States has failed to uphold a promise, made in the 1990’s, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. If one examines the history and facts it appears Russia has a valid point.

Most people with an awareness of post WW2 history know that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. NATO countries were clearly defined as the other side in the “Cold War” against the Soviet Union. In recent years NATO has emphasized that its role includes “a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.”

This expanded purpose may be NATO’s only justification of existence. If NATO was formed in response to the threat of the Soviet Union, then when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 NATO should have also dissolved. In reality, since the 1990’s, NATO has expanded immensely.

The disbanding of the Soviet Union created a void in the old Warsaw Pact (Iron Curtain) countries. The void was ripe for NATO to expand its shield of influence. In the past 25 years NATO’s borders have expanded from the old West Germany border to the Ukraine and into the Balkins.

When the Berlin Wall fell, the question was whether the reunified Germany would be aligned with the United States and NATO or the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The George H.W. Bush administration advocated for the reconstituted German republic to be include in NATO.

On February 9^th 1990 U.S. leaders met in Moscow with the Soviets and a verbal agreement was struck. According to transcripts of the meetings then Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, the U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin the reunification of Germany talks.

Although no formal deal was struck, the evidence indicates that a quid pro quo was initiated. Gorbachev would agreed to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion. In June of 1990 Bush was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought “a new, inclusive Europe.”

In 1999 Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic joined NATO. In 2002 at the Prague Congress center Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were invited to join NATO. In 2004 at the Istanbul summit, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia were welcomed in NATO as members. NATO leaders also made substantial progress towards receiving Ukraine into membership.  In 2011, NATO officially recognized four more members: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro.

Russian leaders Yeltsin, Medvedev and Gorbachev have all protested that U.S. and NATO have violated the non-expansion arrangement of 1990’s. Putin has become the loudest Russian leader to protest against NATO’s advance into Eastern Europe. Putin’s rhetoric over NATO’s expansion has been termed by most politicians (including Clinton) and the compliant US press as “aggression and saber-rattling.”

NATO used a US backed regime change in Ukraine to cast an even darker shadow on Putin.  But the situation was distorted by the US, NATO and mainstream media. In February of 2014, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland “masterminded” the “regime change” in Ukraine, that overthrew the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych. The State Department convinced the ever-gullible U.S. mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for “democracy.”

The U.S. organized a propaganda campaign to promote the coup-makers as heroes, not the brown shirts that they actually were. The New York Times and The Washington Post and most all of the West’s mainstream media twisted their reporting into all kinds of contortions to avoid telling their readers that the new regime in Kiev was permeated by and dependent on neo-Nazi fighters and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who wanted a pure-blood Ukraine, without ethnic Russians.

In Crimea, the ethnic Russians, who had been Yanukovych’s political base, resisted what they viewed as the illegitimate overthrow of their elected president. Crimea held a referenda seeking separation from Ukraine. On March 16, the referendum was organized by the elected legislative assembly of Crimea. Some 95.5% of voters in Crimea supported joining Russia. Vladimir Putin accepted the results of the Crimean people’s and Crimea joined Russia, after all Crimea has been under Russia on and off since 1783.

Meanwhile this past summer NATO conducted Anaconda-2016 a 10-day military exercise, involving 31,000 troops and thousands of vehicles from 24 countries. It represented the biggest movement of foreign allied troops in Poland in peace time. The exercise, launched in Poland, was promoted as a test of cooperation between allied commands and troops in responding to military, chemical and cyber threats. The question should be asked “From where are these threats coming?”

The only non-NATO country in that part of the world that is capable of being a Military threat is Russia. The DNC and Hillary can tell us exactly who the leading suspect of Cyber terrorism is. Hillary in the presidential debates concluded “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.” When in trouble blame the Russians.

George Washington advised against “permanent alliances,” and Jefferson, in his inaugural address on 4 March 1801, declared his devotion to “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” World War 1 was the enactment of  a series of those alliances that went into affect after the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Leaving NATO may just be a preventative move to avoid WW3. Where have you gone Ron Paul?

 

The Biggest Losers – Was It A Trifecta?

The United States of America, in particular the Constitution, was the biggest loser in the First Presidential Debate of 2016. The runner-ups were the media followed closely by the two candidates.

The position that the candidates hold on “Stop and Frisk” is outrageous. Trump endorsing it and Hillary stating that it should be used only when necessary. I take that to mean only on “super predators”. This type of oppressive force was one of the major reasons that the citizens of Boston back in the 1770’s protested against the standing army that the British had deployed on the streets of that fine American city.

Illegal search was also a driving force of the anti-federalist during many of the 13 State’s Constitutional Ratification Conventions. Illegal search was a major point in their heated discussions of those conventions. Their insistence to clarify a citizen’s rights against the State even convinced the federalist to expound upon it. The ratification of the Constitution would ensue partially due to the promise of a “Bill of Rights” type amendments that were to address illegal search and seizure.  *

The second assault against the constitution is the fact that both candidate support the concept that if a citizens name appears on a government generated secretive list it would be acceptable to strip that citizen of their Constitutional rights. To use a secretive list, that who knows the criteria that will land you on it, as a reason to deny your 2^nd Amendment **  right is scary. Am I on the “No Fly” list for writing this blog? I will not know until I attempt to book my next flight.

My point is that “list” should not be to used to strip the constitutional rights of citizens. List are arbitrarily created by agenda driven bureaucrats. Governmental lists are most often used in an immoral and unjust manner.  They have been proven to be wrong and harmful to many innocent citizens. Is there another Joe McCarty type lurking in the shadows of the NSA or the TSA? Why let habeas corpus get in the way of another failed governmental security ploy.

The United States of America does not have a glowing history of it’s usage of governmental list.  I’m sure the Japanese-American community might have a relevant argument against “lists”.  Maybe take a look at the “red” screenwriters in Hollywood during the 1950’s. A vote for either of these demagogues will ensure a future of limited rights for the compliant and restricted rights, if any, for the critics.

In the wake of Monday nights assaults on the 4^th and 2^nd amendment one would think that the “cracker jack” investigative reporters of mainstream media would have been incensed. No, it is most frightening that the compliant media either missed it or choose not to address the tyrannical stance of the candidates.

The news from the debate should have included a review of the Presidential Oath of Office. The oath requires their pledge to defend the Constitution, that includes the Bill of Rights. So, how can a candidate get away with statements that defy and undermine the Constitution? I assume the media “marketeers” believe a spat and statements made by an ex-reality TV host and an ex-beauty contestant is more relevant than defending the Constitution. Maybe I should correct my assumption to include that it may motivate more viewers to tune in to the next episode.

When did mainstream media become just another reality TV show? I guess the Presidential Race Show does have a winning formula. In the battle for power it is the villains that make good reality TV. In this show we have two of them running for President.

No, again I must correct myself.  The BIGGEST losers were the Citizens of the United States. We deserve better and we have to demand it. We need better candidates and a better media that stops being a mouth piece for the Washington status quo.

*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

**A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Enough with the elector process. I’m moving on.

EpiPen “With a Little Help From My Friends”

EpiPen has recently attracted attention due to the fact that the price for a pack of two has increased about 600% in less than 10 years. Mylan, owners of EpiPen, has responded by pointing out that many of their customers pay nothing for the drug because of insurance coverage. Really, if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound argument.

Most of the “corporate” mainstream news media point the finger at greedy corporations who are not regulated enough. Instead of reporting the history of how the price of the EpiPen has risen the media searches for convenient scapegoats or villain to rally its troops against. Incomplete reporting is irresponsible and distorts reality. Sloppy reporting shields the real culprits, crony capitalism and the bureaucrats, at the expense of the innocent. In this case the free markets, true capitalism and the consumer.

Monopolies exist when competition is eliminated.  With no competitors a firm can raise their prices without a competing companies entering the market to give consumers what they want at a lower price. As it turns out, Mylan has friends that help to keep competitors out of the market. Their friends are the FDA, the U.S. patent system and the regulated insurance industry. The common denominator in the fore mentioned trio is the State.

“With Help From My Friends” Mylan has been able to steadily increase the price of EpiPens without significant market repercussions. Why? Because the alternatives are few and far between. The EpiPen is a device that easily and safely injects epinephrine to quickly open up airways for people undergoing severe anaphylaxis because of an extreme allergy. It has saved the lives of countless people who are allergic to bee stings, certain foods, or other drugs because it can be administered on the spot by somebody without any medical training.

Epinephrine cost is cheap. A dose of epinephrine is just a few cents. The barrier that has allowed the EpiPen’s to increase their price is its delivery system. The auto-injecting device is owned by Mylan. So, in order to compete with Mylan a new injector system device has to be designed, tested and approved. This process, coupled with the FDA red tape, has proven to be too expensive, time consuming and difficult for EpiPen competitors.

Examples of attempts to enter the “EpiPen” market:                                                                     “A French pharmaceutical company offered an electronic device that actually talks people through the steps of administering the drug, but it was recalled because of concerns about it delivering the required dose. Just this year, Teva Pharmaceutical’s attempt at bringing a generic epinephrine injector to market in the US was blocked by the FDA. Adrenaclick and Twinject were unable to get insurance companies on board and so discontinued their injectors in 2012.

Adrenaclick has since come back, but it is still not covered by many insurance plans, and the FDA has made it illegal for pharmacies to substitute Adrenaclick as a generic alternative to EpiPen. Another company tried to sidestep the whole auto-injector patent barrier by offering prefilled syringes, but the FDA has stalled them, too.” 1

As Mylan’s “friends” took care of the competition Mylan increased the price of EpiPens. To “add salt to the wound” local, state and federal laws have made it mandatory to have EpiPens present on the premises of many public and private locals. Some venues actually require more that one EpiPen. The businesses and locations include schools, restaurants and cafeterias.

So, government intervention has not only created the environment for price gouging to occur they have produced and expanded the market for a “friend’s” product. Monopolies exist due to the fact that there is no competition or the competition has been eliminated. This situation exemplifies how government regulations, patents, licenses and other imposed restriction create monopolies. Is this fair to the consumer or do regulation protect the profits of the chosen?

Free markets and capitalism is not to blame government regulations are. Companies must be allowed to compete on even ground in a free market. Eliminating the regulation imposed by the FDA, the U.S. patent system and the insurance industry will ensure a cheap and affective solution for severe allergic reaction.

If intellectual property rights, copyrights and patents, are removed the consumer benefits. Intellectual property rights ensure unjust pricing and profit while eliminating competition by creating monopolies. Laws are made to protect individuals not to guarantee profits.

 

1 Jonathan Newman “The Lack of EpiPen Competitors is the FDA’s Fault” Mises Institute

 

A Two Party System – Two Horse Race

The United States’ political scenario is dominated by two “major” parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Our political environments is a duopoly (monopoly of two). Many voters will go to the polls in November believing they only have two choices. Our history show us that the overwhelming majority of the Presidential elections have been a two horse race. Why two?

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party secured their position as the duopoly by the mid 1800’s and further solidified it in the 1900’s. The Republican Party’s first presidential candidate was Abraham Lincoln, in 1860. The Democratic Party was founded in 1828 and held it’s first convention in 1832.

In 2016, the Democratic “horse” and the Republican “horse” will be the survivors of a too long, too expensive, too superficial and yet too overexposed process. The media’s coverage of the Presidential Primary is all the proof we need to confirm their dominance.

The media moderates and host the debates. They put world and national news behind their primary coverage, polls and results. The media’s coverage is for just two of the Political Parties. Why is our choice, for arguable the most powerful person in the world, “limited” to just two?

The Party

It may be helpful to understand the evolution of Presidential Party Politics. The Party is not a part of the government, it is a private corporation. Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. A Party, faction, is contrary to the ideals of free independent thinking individuals that the Constitution promotes.

The Party has a political purpose. It’s purpose is to advance it’s ideals and the brand. The office of the President is the most visable and most powerful position to accomplish this goal. Why else would it cost billions of dollars?

The Songs of the Sirens – The Convention and The Primary

The Convention is a necessity. It acts as a gathering for the party members to nominate a candidate. It is the venue to declare it’s latest political policies, the Party’s platform.  Finally ,the convention is a pregame pep rally to inspire the members to unite behind it’s chosen candidate

The primary is a tool  used by only the two “major” parties. It is a measuring instrument used to determine the voter’s preference.

The Convention

National Party leaders and the states political bosses were the only players in the early conventions. State party bosses controlled the party’s delegate selections. In the 1800’s the conventions were used to select the candidate and to unite the party members support behind it’s candidate. A lot of deal making took place behind closed doors and rank-and-file  members had little say in the process.

During the Progressive movement in the early 1900s, several politicians began making demands for change. The voting members of the party became disenchanted with the Convention system. They felt left out and were not involved. They demanded more influence in determining it’s Presidential candidate.

In the late 1800’s a push for a primary process, popular vote, started and quickly expanded. The idea was that popular vote would determine it’s state delegates for the Convention. It was an attempt to promote popular opinion over the Party’s political machine.

In 1912, the muscle of the party bosses were flexed  when former president Theodore Roosevelt challenged incumbent William Howard Taft. There were 10 states that held primaries. Roosevelt won nine primaries compared to Taft’s one and he captured over 40 percent of the delegates. Despite this, Taft  won the nod of the party bosses and got the nomination.

In response to the bosses power move, more states began to adopt primaries and caucuses. The Primary system did empower the voters with a voice but the bosses still held the trump card. The state primaries were viewed as an “advisory,”  a “beauty contest,” or, in the case of many caucuses, “a straw polls”. They were to gauge the candidates popularity, but were not necessarily key to getting a nomination.

As much as the process changed it remained the same. The political elite were still in control when it came to selecting the “Party Nominee”. This became very clear in 1952 when the Republican Party nominated Eisenhower over Taft. Then again, in 1968 when Humphrey was nominated by the Democrate Party.

At the 1968 Democratic National Convention Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the nomination over Eugene McCarthy after not running in a single state primary. The call for reform came and the Democratic Party lead the way. The Republicans also did their version of this dance.

Reform of 1974 and the 1980’s

The reform of 1974 was aimed to bring uniformity to the delegate selection process and to give greater influence to the “marginal voice”. The reform was aimed at more representation of women, minorities and young people. This they felt would limit the power of the bosses.

The 1972 Democratic primary was the first campaign of the “modern” era. The results of the reform was the nomination of US Senator McGovern as the Democratic Candidate. McGovern  lost in a landslide to Nixon, 49 state to one. Then 1976, in the wake of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, when any Democrat could have been elected, the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter.

Both McGovern and Carter were not the favorite of the bosses. Carter did not do well as President and in 1980 he was steamrolled by Ronald Reagan. Reagan won 44 states to Carter’s six. This time the bosses called out for reform.

The 1984 reforms brought on the age of the superdelegate. The influence of the Party elite was fortified. The superdelagate was just the remedy for the political bosses. The Republican party has their own version of delegate control.

Reform gave the Party leverage to create a more stable and predictable nominating process that favors the mainstream candidates that endorses Party policies. In reality, they exist “to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.”

Battleground Cleveland and Philadelphia

Sometimes the unexpected happens. The Party is caught by surprise.  Outsiders like Trump and Sanders sudden appear. They are able to sneak in adroitly  and dodge the Party’s barriers. Trump mainly due to his personal financing and Sanders mainly due to a void left to oppose a dishonest and unlikable Party favorite, a grass-roots candidate.

Both Trump and Sanders are in conflict with the political “mainsteam”. Their conflict may culminate with an outright battle for power at this years convention. The political elite and the party’s candidates, versus the outsider and their supporters. The outcome will most likely generate more cries for reform.

More Reform! – “You can’t shine shit”

When I as a younger man I worked for a mason as a laborer.  One day we were short a bricklayer.  I was put on the line to help build a wall, to lay brick. I struggled and lost a lot of production time by redoing and trying to fix my work.

The foreman noticed my lack of production. As I was trying to make my section of wall look good, he approached. “What I was doing?”. I told him I was trying to make it look good. His response is a saying that has stuck with me for over 40 years.”Son, you can’t shine shit!”

Reform is not the answer to a corrupted two party system. The solutions is to expand the number of choices.

Most casual observers have been persuaded to believe that only two parties offer a viable vote for the Presidency. For 62 years I have been a victim of this propaganda. Our political field needs to be expanded to a third party, a forth party and maybe even a fifth party candidate. Wait they exist!. Why are we unaware of the other parties,  the “minor” parties? Why do we feel it would be throwing a vote away?

One major advantage in a monopolistic system is that the Duopoly owns the promoters, the media. The promoters ensure that the customers are not aware that they can go elsewhere.

There is a need for more diversity in political ideals. The Duopoly does not offer a choice. Both parties promote a large hostile government, with an out of control spending habit and employ worldwide imperialistic intervention. These are policies, as a Patriot, I can not support. Quite frankly, they embarrass me.

It’s a difficult task to battle a two-headed monster. There are many embedded obstacles to hurdle just to get to the battlefield. In the next blog these obsticles will be examined.

 

 

                                           The Presidential Election process                                                    Ch-ch-ch-changes; Time may change me;
But I can’t trace time

There have been Amendments to the Constitution that have affected the Presidential selection process. Most of the Amendments have focused on voter eligibility and the right to vote. The 12th Amendment changed the process of selecting the Vice President. The 17th Amendment changed the selection of US Senators from being selected by the State Legislature to a popular vote.

The real changes that have affected the Presidential election process has been the process itself. With the emergence and domination, of a two party system, the nomination process has expanded. In the early 1800’s, elected representitives nominated the Presidential candidates. The selection of candidates was not party based, it was merit based.

Today the candidate selection is dominated by the two “major” parties with their Party Primaries and Conventions. Party Primaries and Party Conventions are now the road to the Presidency. Has this journey corrupted the founders’ intent?

Partisan politics –  The Two Horse Race

George Washington was nominated and selected (appointed) President without a popular vote. In his farewell address, Washington warned us about the danger of party partisanship. In Federalist Paper Number 9 and 10, Madison and Hamilton also warned us about the dangers of “factions”. It appears that these warnings fell upon deaf ears. All three of these founding fathers viewed partisan politics as dishonest, self interested and dangerous.

The 1796 “election” was our country’s first contested Presidential Campaign. There were as many as 10 candidates. It should be noted, only two states held a popular election to “help” the State Legislatures and Electoral College members decide their candidate. The two leading candidates were candidates of different political thought, John Adams, the Federalists, and Thomas Jefferson the Democratic-Republican.

Adams won the first bout but in 1800 Jefferson won a rematch. The results of these elections gave us the 12th Amendment. In 1804, the 12th Amendment was ratified it changed the selection process of the Vice President. It also clarified which Congress, the outgoing or the incoming, would be involved in the confirmation process. A significant outcome of these elections was the birth of bipartisan politics, the two party system and a winner-take-all trends began.

At this point, the Presidential Election process was a lot simpler than it is today. Each state’s contingent of  US Congressmen would caucus to select it’s candidates for President. The results of this caucus would be sent back home to their State Legislature.

The State Legislatures would received the results from their Congressmen to evaluate and discussed the proposed candidates. The State Legislature would then pass their selection on to the Electoral College members.

The Electoral College members would go to Washington DC to cast their vote. The majority winner of the total number of electoral college votes would become President.

The Electoral College (EC) Vote – They really do select the President! 

1800 – 1820: State Legislators controlled the EC vote. Several states began experimenting with a district based selections and a popular vote or a combination of all three methods to determine how the EC should vote.

By 1820: This is the last election in which state legislatures played a dominant role. Political parties were becoming the dominating power influencing the EC vote. This marks the end of an independent EC.

1824: The majority of states used the winner-take-all statewide method to determine EC vote. All the EC vote from the state would go to one candidate. (as opposed to proportional votes).

1836: All but one state, South Carolina, uses the winner-take-all method based on the statewide popular vote to choose its electors.

1872: For the first time, every state holds an election that determine it’s EC vote. The EC vote was winner-take-all rule based upon the popular vote. This marks the first real modern day National Presidential Election.

1876: Colorado is the last state to conform to a popular vote to determine its EC.

Present: All but 2 state, Maine & Nebraska, have a winner-take-all outcome based upon the states popular vote.

The early nomination and selection process did not include primaries and conventions. They would come later. Most of us view the primaries and conventions as a necessary stage for a Presidential candidate to master. They aren’t!  The primaries are only a stage for the”major” parties.  Both “Major” and “Minor” parties do hold conventions but they are not required.

The Democrat and Republican Parties use the primary as a “beauty” contest to expose, to the public, it’s candidates. The results of the primary supply the Party with the national popularity of the candidates. They also serve to gain delegates for the convention. The convention is the political bosses show to actually choose their Party’s candidate. The media compliantly goes along for the ride.

The reality is that the Democrat and Republican Party are not the only parties. However, they appear to be the only “viable” choice. There are many parties. The Libertarian Party, the Constitutional,  the Green Party and the list goes on. Does the main steam media cover or promote* any of the “minor” party?  Who covers primary elections or conventions for the Libertarian and Green Party?

The Duopoly

Political parties are private corporations. Most corporations sell a product(s). The Party’s product is an ideology represented by a person, it’s candidate. The Party’s ideal are called the planks and the complete package of ideals is the Party’s platform. The difference in ideals or platform usually helps to distinguish one party from another.

History has shown us that the popularity of a party change over time. The Federalist Party disappeared, so did the Whig Party, the Bull Moose Party as well as the Know Nothing Party. Parties disappear because their platforms become irrelevant or their platform does not represent a large enough faction of the population.

Are the Democrat and Republican platforms distinguishable?  Does the voting public have a real choice? Is voting for a “minor” party candidate “throwing your vote away”?

Next –  The conventions and the primary system of a duopoly. (a monopoly of two) 

*John Stossel, of Fox,  moderated and televised Libertarian Party debates. For the most part the minor parties are ignored.

 

Electoral College – the strongest fear, is the fear of the unknown 

Would our founding fathers recognize the present day Presidential election? Is a party based, primary laden, conventions, media promoted process what the founders had in mind? Or has it morphed into a bastardization version of the intended process?

Every four years the voters of United States go to the polls to “elect” it’s President. The Electoral College process has been under scrutiny. Many feel the process is archaic and should be changed.

“Not so fast!” Who really understands the Electoral College? Our founding fathers were brilliant men. Would they have created a flawed system? In order to have a discussion on the Electoral College we first need to review the rules and understand the intent of the founders.

“What the hells going on out there?”

The United States is a republic, a constitutional, confederate republic. A republic differs from a democracy in that the voters elect representative to serve as their voice.

A republic usually includes a charter. The charter of the United States is the Constitution. The Constitution describes our representative governmental procedures and the balance of powers.

A confederacy is an organization by which several smaller states agree to become a members of a larger one. Our confederacy is some times called a union. Our union of fifty states is the bases of our name, the United States of America.

The Intent – Failures Are Errors in Justice, Not of Intent

The founding fathers developed a unique process to elect the President of the United State. They had several issues that they wanted to addressed. The four most common were as follows;

1. Majority rule or popular vote. They believed this was not the best way to determine a leader. They felt that majorityism (majority rule) could be too reactionary, too emotionally and could be overly influenced by current events and populist movements.
2. Distrust of central authority. They wanted to insure against the executive branch becoming a monarchy. The felt that the process should be diverse.
3. Independent. They felt that the president should be beholden to no one. They wanted to insulated the selection process from the influence of individual, group or organizations.
4. States sovereignty. They wanted the states to be the most powerful broker in the selection process. The sanctity of the state was paramount.

Their intent was to create a selection process that was decentralize and promoted discussion and discourse. This process would be insulated from the influence of special interest groups while being controlled by the elected representatives of the sovereign states. The result was the Electoral College System.

The Process – Is the road to hell paved with good intentions? 

• Voters elect representatives
• The elected representatives, represent the voter at different levels of government. These levels can be local, state or national.
• Representatives at the state level become part of the State Legislature.
• State Legislature is a generic term, some state have different names for it (General Court, General Assembly, Legislative Assembly)
• Representative at the national level become part of Congress either in the House of Representatives (Congressmen) or in the Senate (US Senator)
• The State Legislature select the Electoral College Members.
• The Electoral Members vote to elect the President of the United States.

* If, in the Electoral College procedure, no candidate receives the majority of the total Electoral votes, the the House of Representative will then select the President

The Electoral College –  It’s a State Institute

The Electoral Process satisfies the founder’s four concerns.

1) Majority rule or popular vote. The process is as close to the voter as possible without the voter directly selecting the President.

2) Distrust of central authority. It is a decentralized process. Each state, all fifty state , hold elections on voting day to “elect” the President.

3) Independent. The Electoral College Member are, in theory, independant citizens selected from the state’s community.

4) States sovereignty. The Electoral College process is controlled by the states citizens, State Legislatures and state selected Electoral College Members.

Graduate Studies – More About the College

The number of Electoral Members is determined by the number of representatives that the states has in Congress (the number of US Senators plus the number of US Representative). The more populated states  would have more votes, they represented more people, but the less populated state would be proportionately represented.

The Electoral College would be selected every four years. The members could not include “Senator or Representative persons holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”

The intent being that the Electoral members would be non-partisian, well respected citizens from their state’s community having the state best interests in mind.

Voting – Who wins a popular vote for dinner between 2 wolves and 1 chicken? 

Congress will determine the time of chusing the Electors. Each state will hold their state’s elections on the same day.

Upon receiving the election results, the Electors will meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President. The Electoral Members will make a list of all persons receiving votes.  The results are delivered to the President of the United States Senate.

In front of Congress, the President of the Senate will open and count the votes. The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President.

If the top vote getter does not receive a majority of all the Electoral cast the process is moved to the House of Representatives along with the names of the top three vote getters.

 House of Representatives – Where Overtime Sudden Victory Happens

Every state will receive one vote.  However, the one vote is determined by the contingent of that state’s US Representatives. The State will conduct a quorum. The quorum will only commense when two-thirds of the US Representative are present. Each US Representative will vote for their choice.

The winner of this vote will be that state’s one vote.  Each states will then cast it’s one vote. The President would be determined by the majority.

Do Votes Count? – Add Your Voice to the Choir of Opinions and Action

Yes! Kinda! We delegate our voice to the representatives we elect . The State Legislature, is the closest voice of we the people. The State Legislature selects the Electoral College members.These members technically select the President.

On voting day, the citizen cast their vote for a Presidential candidate. The votes are counted. The results “determine” how the Electoral College member will vote. Ultimately, the President is “elected” by the 50 states’ Electoral College members. It’s a process consistent for a constitutional, confederate republic.  

Part 2 will attempt to answer the question, “Has the intent of the process been compromised?” 

Global War – That means worldwide

The Brussels bombing was a tragedy. Innocent people killed for what? Civilians are always the most numerous victims of war. Make no mistake, the dead in Brussels are victims of the war on terrorism. These unfortunate souls were caught in a crossfire on a global war battlefield. To prevent the killing of more civilians they have to be removed from the battlefields. Here is the dilemma. If we have a global war on terrorism then the entire globe is the battlefield. Since the removal of civilians, from the battleground is impossible, then the only other solution is to eliminate the battleground. This is achieved through peace. When war is eliminated battleground disappear.

If two roads diverged in a wood, why not take the one less traveled?

Peace is the only solution to eliminate the carnage taking place on battlefields such as Paris, Brussels and other place where innocent people are slaughtered.  How can this be achieved? Walk away! Critics might call this a cowardly policy but even a neocon hero like Ronald Reagan understood that wars must end to protect the vulnerable.  click here (When Reagan Cut and Run)  

Political sound bites become policy 

When George Bush ll declared a war on terrorism the battlefield became global.  NATO endorsed this declaration and so did most of our other allies. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria are not local wars, they are the battlefield for our global war on terrorism. This declaration of war has put the United States on the wrong side of history. A global war on terrorism has justified an interventionist policy that rivals the Great Roman Empire’s actions. Does this War on Terrorism justify our invasion of Iraq? Does it justify our reason for still maintaining a military force  in Afghanistan?  Our regime change promotions in Libia or Syria? The list goes on.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Blowback is a term, coined by the CIA,  used to explain a retaliatory action taken by a group, an organization or people. Just as Bush’s declaration of war was a reaction to 9/11, Paris and Brussels are more recent examples of blowback. Support and participation in bellicose behavior kills the innocent. I am not justifying these two events all I am doing is pointing out the logical connection to illogical actions.

“If I catch any of you guys in my stuff I’ll kill ya!” Lighten up Francis

As painful as it may be I would like to revisit 9/11.  Contrary to popular belief it was not a random act of terrorism. It was blowback. From what? From the 1st Gulf War. The terrorist on those planes were a who’s who of the Saudi’s  “Most Likely to be Beheaded” list. Their atrocities were predicated in the retaliation for land occupation by the United States.  More specific the United States building military bases and maintaining an active military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait prior, during and after the 1st Gulf War. The Wahabi takes “infidel” occupation of their sacred land very serious.

War what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

We are spiraling, out of control, heading towards World War lll. Can we pull out of this death spiral before it is too late? Killing is wrong, more killing is more wrong. The neocons will call for more troops, more bombs, more wars, more killings and the annihilation of ISIS. Every time we intervene in local issues to “fix it” we make it worse. Assess our most recent endeavors: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Vietnam. Any civil minded person grading these “fixes” would conclude that we have failed. Our “fixes” have often produced worse conditions. ISIS was hatched in the aftermath of the Iraqi  “fix”.

Pete and Repete  What happens if Repete falls?

My first car was a 1966 Chevy Bel-air. By 1980 it was burning a massive amount of oil, it got terrible gas mileage and the costs to maintain it were increasing daily. Every repair that I paid for I would justify it by saying “this fix will be the last fix”. However, the fixes were becoming more frequent and the safety of the car more suspect. I had a choice, cut and run or continue to be a slave to my glorious machine. Rather than spending money that I did not have I decided to sell my hazardous car.  It just made sense. Cut and run. Was that cowardly?