Part 2 “America is killing the Yemeni people.”

Graffiti on walls across the Yemen capital of Sana reads: “America is killing the Yemeni people.” Why is the US being singled out? Could this be a cry of desperation? If it is the world is choosing not to listen. The graffiti is directed at the major supplier of the military arms to Saudi Arabia. There is no mistaken the United States is embroiled in another protracted War, this time in Yemen.

The United Nations human rights office reports that that air strikes by the Saudis coalition are responsible for an estimated 60 percent of the deaths in Yemen. A UN panel in January found 119 air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition potentially breached human rights law. Both the UN and human rights groups have discussed the possibility that the Saudi offensive constitutes war crimes.

To further exacerbating the growing humanitarian crisis, the Saudis coalition blockade of Yemen’s ports has prevented food and fuel aid into Yemen putting 80% of the country’s civilian population in need of humanitarian aid.

Publicly, the United States has kept its distance from the war, but its decades-old alliance with Saudi Arabia, underpinned by billions of dollars in weapons sales, has left American fingerprints on the air campaign.

Although U.S. forces are not “directly” involved in the fighting in Yemen, the U.S. has supplied weapons to Saudi Arabia. It is the weapons that have made the Saudi bombing campaign possible. The United States has been providing the Saudis with bombs, intelligence, and aerial refueling for its jets. The US Military advisers are often present in the Saudi-led campaign’s control room.

Since spring 2015, U.S. planes have flown more than 1,000 refueling sorties and offloaded tens of millions of pounds of fuel to Saudi aircraft. US officials have also provided advice on target development and training for the Saudi pilots.

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest importer of arms. They spent $9.3 billion in 2015. Saudi Arabia in the past year has purchased Eurofighter Typhoon jets, F-15 warplanes and Apache helicopters, as well as precision-guided weapons, drones and surveillance equipment.

U.S. is the world’s top arms exporter.  The U.S. is the supplier of approximately one third of all the arms on this planet. In 2015 the US exported almost $23 billion worth of arms. Saudi Arabia is arguable it’s best customers. The business of producing and selling arms is solid.

One example of the world’s increasing demand for arms is Lockheed Martin. The company has recently signed several multi-billion deals with Saudi Arabia. The company’s sales revenue was $46.1 billion in 2015, up by around $500 million on 2014 sales.

The United States’ Department of Defense deals with Saudi Arabia since March of 2015.

• May 2015 MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters — $1.900 billion,
• July 2015 Ammunition RSLF $0.500 billion
• July 2015 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missiles — $5.400 billion,
• October 2015 Black Hawk Helicopters RSLF Aviation Command $0.495 billion
• October 2015 Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ships $11.250 billion
• November 2015 Air-to-Ground Munitions RSAF $1.290 billion
• February 2016 MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems $0.154 billion
• February 2016 USMTM Technical Assistance Field Teams Support $0.200 billion
• August 2016 M1A2S Tanks and Related Equipment $1.150 billion
• 8, 2016 Chinook Cargo Helicopters and related equipment, training, and support. The estimated cost is $3.51 billion.

Marine General Smedley Butler published a book in the 1930’s called “War is a Racket”. In his book, General Butler, a two-time Medal of Honor recipient, discussed how warfare provided profiteering opportunities to business.

Another prominent US General, President Dwight Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell warned the US citizens about the “unwarranted influence”, of the business, that he called the “military industrial complex”.

U.S. in Violation of International Law?

A report by Amnesty International identifies three of the bomb types in the U.S. arms sale as having been used in Saudi Arabia’s unlawful airstrikes. Yemenis often find the remains of American-made munitions, as they did in the ruins after a strike that killed more than 100 mourners at a funeral earlier this year. Remember the graffiti?

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was the first global treaty to regulate the conventional military arms trade. As of 1 July 2016, eighty-six (86) States had ratified or acceded to the ATT including the US. The ATT declares that “states are not allowed to sell weapons to a party engaged in armed conflict, if it knows the arms could be used “in attacks directed against civilians or other war crimes as defined by international law.”

In January 2016 the ATT concluded that some signatory States are in direct violation of the legally binding Treaty obligations when they supply arms to Saudi Arabia. The ATT concluded that there is clear risk that the arms sold to Saudi Arabia will be used in breach of international law in Yemen.

The UN Security Council on Yemen identified 119 coalition air sorties relating to violations of *International humanitarian law (IHL). The report states that airstrikes have targeted civilians and civilian objects, including residential areas, markets, schools, mosques, factories and food warehouses, and gatherings such as weddings. reports and stress to need for urgent action and the immediate halt of arms transfers to the Saudi-led coalition.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have produced evidence that US and UK munitions have been used in Saudi-led coalition airstrikes against several residential neighborhoods in Yemen.

In spite of this information the current administration has offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training. The agreements included everything from small arms and ammunition to tanks, attack helicopters, air-to-ground missiles, missile defense ships, and warships. Washington also provides maintenance and training to Saudi security forces.

Just maybe President-elect Trump should make General Smedley Butler’s “War is a Racket” and President (General) Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Address required readings for the Generals he has nominated for positions in his cabinet.

 

* This is the law that regulates “Conduct of War”.  It seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities, the civilians and children.

Oh Yemen! – Man It’s Hard Just to Live

There is a war going on in Yemen, just as brutal as the war in Syria. Yet, it has received very little media attention.

“Yemen is a media blackout,” said Jamie McGoldrick, the top U.N. humanitarian official in the country. “It’s not getting the attention it deserves. It’s not Aleppo. We don’t have drones flying over it showing the destruction. We don’t have a Mosul, which has BBC cameras 24-7 on it.”

In order to understand the real tragedy in Yemen, one must turn away from the US mainstream media’s “real news” and seek alternative “fake” media sources. A good start would be the powerful documentary by the BBC “Starving Yemen”, produced by Nawal Al-Maghafi.  (www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37423263) This documentary exposes the real causalities of war, the civilian, especially the children.

The chief executive of Oxfam, Mark Golding, stated: “Yemen is being slowly starved to death. First there were restrictions on imports including much need food. When this was partially eased, the cranes in the ports were bombed, then the warehouses, then the roads and the bridges. This is not by accident. It is systematic.”

Before, the current civil war began, Yemen was the poorest country in the Middle East, it still is. Yemen’s food and medicine has to be imported. More than 90 percent of it’s supplies must be imported and come into the country’s by way of it’s ports and airports.

The Yemen civil war can be traced back to the Arab Spring of 2011. Since then Yemen has reeled from one political shock to another. The Arab Spring resulted in it’s authoritarian leader President Saleh being ousted and “agreeing” to a power-transition deal he signed in 2011.

Saleh actually backed out of signing the GCC (Gulf Co-operation Council) power-transition deal three times. However, after a June 3, 2011 bomb attack on his presidential palace, which killed 14 bodyguards and government officials, he reconsidered.

From Saudi Arabia Saleh issued a decree, authorizing Hadi, who he had appointed as vice-president in 1994, to assume the role of acting president. Hadi would negotiate with the opposition to sign the GCC-brokered power transition deal.

The deal called for forming a national unity government from the Yemeni ruling party GPC and the opposition coalition Joint Meeting Parties (JMP), each accounting for 50 percent representation and a presidential election to be held.

This deal made Yemen the first Arab Spring nation where an uprising led to a negotiated settlement brokered by a foreign coalition, the GCC. The Gulf Co-operation Council is made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This deal was also backed by Washington DC, the European Union and the United Nations.

The “open and free” democratic election that followed was a bit suspect. Hadi was the only candidate on the ballot. Two of the most popular factions in Yemen, the Houthis in northern Yemen and the southern Ansar al-Sharia (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), both called for a boycott of the election. To cast an even larger shadow over the results, Yemeni police reports indicate that they arrested “hardliners” that alleged sought to forcefully prevent people from voting.

Then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed the 2012 Presidential election in Yemen and promised continuous support to the Arab nation as it confronts challenges ahead. She extended her congratulations to the Yemeni people on the “successful” presidential vote, and called the election “another important step forward” in Yemen’s democratic transition process.

Secretary of State Clinton, in a written statement, concluded that, “Today’s election sends a clear message that the people of Yemen are looking forward to a brighter democratic future.” Probable the same message the Secretary sent to Trump after the results of the 2016 US Presidential Election were learned.

Hadi was elected president but he had a country beset by a host of problems. Separatists and rebels rejecting the brokered GCC deal and not acknowledging the legitimacy of the single candidate election.

Reactions soon turned violent. The Houthis movement in the north and a growing threat from al-Qaeda in the south escalated.  In September of 2014, the Houthi rebels took power in Yemen and on  January 22, 2015, under Houthi arrest, Yemen President Hadi resigned from his office but is was not over.

Ex-president Hadi, escaped the Houthis’ house arrest and fled to Arden. In February 0f 2015, he  retracted his January resignation as president and reestablished himself as the President of Yemen.

By March 2015, with the Houthis advancing to the outskirts of Aden, Hadi left Yemen and took refuge in the Saudi capital Riyadh. Today Hadi’s provisional government resides in Saudi Arabia.  The GCC countries, the United Nations, the European Union and the US continued to back Hadi as the legitimate leader of Yemen.

By the end of March 2015, a coalition of Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the United States began an aggressive campaign, known as Operation Decisive Storm, aimed at restoring the Hadi government.

So as of March 2015, the civil war became multi-national when Saudi Arabia took sides in the Yemeni civil war in behalf of “Hadi’s legitimate government.” The results of their intervention has devastated the Yemeni people. The country has imploded even further as the Saudi-led coalition entered the fray with it’s blockades and bombings.

The Saudi’s  bombing campaign have laid waste to Yemen’s infrastructure. Their bombs have destroyed bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, water wells and reports indicate that farms and orchards have all been targeted. Saudi Arabian and its coalition partners have also established a naval blockade around Yemen.

The result of Saudi’s actions has shut down imports into Yemen. Thus the 90 percent of food and medicine required by the Yemeni has virtually disappeared. The United Nations estimates that more than 80 percent of Yemen’s population of 23 million are in immediate need of humanitarian assistance.

Why is Hadi government considered the “legitimate government”? Is it because he was “democratically” elected? Or is it because the Gulf Co-operation Council made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates says so? Or is it a way for Saudi Arabia to fight a proxy war against Iran? Or is it just a good market for the Industrial Military Complex?

How ever the legitimacy is rationalized none are addressing the popular sovereignty of the Yemeni people nor their welfare. Two final question about the legitimacy of Hadi’s leadership should be answered.

1. What kind of leader would allow a foreign coalition to devastate his country, kill his innocent civilians, starve his defenseless children and deny the Yemeni any medical supplies? 
2. Do we really think that Hadi could go back to Yemen and gain the support of the Yemeni people?

Oh Yemen! – Man It’s Hard Just to Live.

 

Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is Amended

We have been taught in school that, “no taxation without representation” were the Colonists first cry for liberty. However, the first screams for liberty began when James Otis Jr. took action against illegal search and seizure.

John Adams sought to make sure that invasive searches and seizures were never carried out again when drafting the Fourth Amendment. In it, he wrote “a warrant must specify the “persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure.”

An amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect on December 1^st. It now reads:  “A magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”

The amendment is a game changer for the FBI’s regulation over search and seizure. This change will allow federal agencies to obtain a warrant for “remote-access” searches and seizures of digital materials. I would argue that it is a returned to the days when America was ruled by the King of England and the British Parliament.

To give some historical context, we need to go back in history to the the 1760s. British authorities were allowed to carry out searches of anyone at anytime, regardless of whether or not they were suspected of a crime.

The reason John Adams was so vehemently opposed to unwarranted searches and seizures was because he watched as James Otis Jr, a Boston attorney, challenge the British hierarchy on the legality of the searches and seizures afforded to the British officials and custom agents under the writ of assistance issued

A writ of assistance is a written order (a writ) issued by a court instructing a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff or a tax collector, to perform a certain task.

In the England, writs of assistance were first authorized by an act of the English Parliament in 1660 to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to “assist” the customs official in carrying out his duties.

The writs of assistance for the customs officials served as general search warrants. The writs were permanent and even transferable; the holder of a writ could assign it to another official. Any place could be searched at the whim of the holder, and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused. In practice, this put anyone who had such a writ above the laws.

These writs of assistance were being used in an effort to curtail the “smuggling” by the merchants of Boston. The authority of the writ was used in an attempt to capture the taxes and gain control on the illegal goods being “smuggled” into Boston.

Colonists protested that the writs violated their rights as British subjects. The writs were challenged by a group of 63 Boston merchants represented by Attorney James Otis, Jr. Otis technically lost his challenge to the authority of the King and Parliament writs but made a strong impression on both Samuel Adams and John Adams as the watched the trials with great interest.

In a pamphlet published in 1765, Otis expanded his argument that the general writs violated the British unwritten constitution. The constitution opposed any law in violation of the Magna Carta or “natural law” was void.

Natural Law protects natural rights. *Natural rights are addressed in our Declaration of independence. They are called inalienable rights “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.”

 Otis’ next challenge came in September of 1766 when customs officials in Boston, with the help of a deputy sheriff, searched merchant Daniel Malcom‘s home. His home was also his place of business. They claimed the authority to do so by a writ of assistance issued to a British customs agent. The writ was issued based upon the information of a confidential informant.

Malcom allowed the agent and deputy sheriff to search, but denied them access to a locked cellar, arguing that they did not have the legal authority to break it open. Malcom threatened to use force to prevent them from opening the door. Malcom claimed that his threat was specific to his resisting an unlawful forced entry.

The officials left and returned with a specific search warrant, only to find that Malcom had locked his house. A crowd of Malcom supports had gathered around the house and were hostile to the customs officers when they returned.

The British officials described Malcom as acting in defiance of the law. His lawyer, James Otis Jr, argued that Malcom’s actions were lawful. Otis’ push against the validity of writs of assistance produced more challengers. In 1768, John Hancock, a wealthy Boston merchant, would resisted a search in a similar manner when customs officials attempted to search his ship Lydia.

Although no violence occurred during these defiant acts the British Governor of Massachusetts reports back to England created the impression that riots had taken place. These incidents furthered Boston’s reputation in Britain as a lawless town controlled by “mobs”.

This reputation would contribute to Parliament issuing a series of acts called the 1767 Townshend Acts. The Townshend Acts were met with further resistance in the colonies, prompting the occupation of Boston by British troops in 1768, which eventually resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770.

Today law enforcement officials and proponents, of the amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal, claim that this is just a necessary alteration which fits the digital age. It is not. It is a concession of another one of our “natural rights”. For the American citizens it is a loss of privacy.

In the 1760’s the enforcement of the writs of assistance for the custom officials’ illegal searches and seizures became the catalyst that prompted our founding father quest for liberty and independence. Today it is just a footnote.

 

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.