Biden, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Family, Governance, Health Care, Immigration, Politics 2024, Religion, Representation, Taxation

THE PRIME COMMANDMENT

Leave a comment

As a cruise ship plows forward, forcing water aside, waves are created, however short-lived, and they are real… impermanent, but real. Perhaps that is because they last for more than a moment. From windows forty feet above, with the sun shining against the ship and water, there appear light and dark patterns – like lace – flashing into and out of view, only “real” because I have perceived their ephemeral patterns. Engaging someone’s consciousness: is that essential for reality?

Someone sitting at another window could not perceive the same tracery despite its reality to me for a flash of time. It’s much the same as Love or Anger or Sadness or a dozen… no, ten-dozen other emotions, the reality part, at least. Usually they flit across one’s being like a shadow, gaining reality only if your consciousness grabs hold and commits mental energy to one.

Suddenly, from a flash of fear or loathing of someone’s odd difference from your own self you have made a decision – a choice – to hate the different one, even for a few moments… a feeling that is no longer fleeting, but real. If left private, shared with no one else, it is neither bad nor good. While it may affect your own physiology, quicken your breath and pulse, you may choose from evil. You may release the ill-feeling before it becomes a belief. Only belief can render such a flash real.

Funny thing, belief. We all suffer from it, it is how we live. Faith requires it and Hope is made of it. Faith, compounded of hundreds of stories – ideas, really, that can’t be replicated or proven, on the surface, can’t be tested to establish some sort of “proof” for the benefit of others who doubt is premises. It need not be put to any test for those who have it. Faith is trust and that means trust in A source of the idea, or in THE source of the idea.

We, humans, live in faith. It surrounds our beings, functions and beliefs. Much is made of religious faith in this day of militant, feral atheism. Religious faithful especially are denigrated for beliefs in “mumbo jumbo,” although these besmirchments apply almost exclusively to Christians and Jews. One never sees “protesters” opposed to Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists. There are some opponents to Mormons: mostly a quirk of Christian intolerance – the same that underlay many wars, even AMONG Christians, but no worse than sectarian conflicts elsewhere. It has never been settled whether tolerance, per se, is good or bad. Tolerance of what?

But, in terms of faith, itself, those who trust in the solidness of soil, rocks, wood or ice are no less faithful, however shallow that faith may be. After all, if doubt creeps in, one need simply pick up another rock and have his or her faith restored. However, “science” shows us that rocks and other “solid” things are comprised of atoms which are mostly empty space, each part of which is a mere vibration of energy. So, how is it enough of these supposed “atoms” can hold up the weight of others of its kind, plus the weight of us, our rocks, cars and houses?

Well, let’s not worry about such things. Thank God they do… ummm, I mean, thank goodness. Same thing.

We trust in a lot of life we can’t control – or understand – so why is trust in God so singularly questioned? Does His / Her possibility threaten us? Is it because God proclaimed rules that humans are “commanded” to follow? Rules for Good and Bad and Love and Life and Death? One of those rules, that EVERY human once had faith in, Is “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s a pretty good rule, too: easy to understand and without compromise.

We expect, for example, to be impacted by government – an expectation that is so often realized that it becomes a “matter of faith.” We know government is going to limit or coerce us in matters of stealing and, frankly, in almost every action we take. We have FAITH in government’s intrusiveness for it is proven to us a hundred times each day… or, a thousand times, if we open our eyes and ears. It’s part of our belief system – giving us faith in the likelihood that “our” government will impact us similarly tomorrow. There is every reason to believe so.

Admonishing us to not steal implies the existence of private, individual ownership of “things,” “items,” “money” and so forth. In our illuminated existences we like to consider “rights” as something we possess, as well. Maybe we do… possess rights. How so? By virtue of birth? Do our parents give us these amazing, non-substantial things… these rights? Perhaps on a certain birthday?

If they are “parents,” in fact, they provide necessities like food, clothing, shelter, a bed, one hopes. Do children then possess a “right” to these things? Or must such rights be “earned? If earned, at whose expense? “Our” government says, “At all of our expense. We, collectively, will guarantee availability of these necessities for the children in our country whether or not their parents are able to – or choose to – provide them.” The government, in effect, creates those “rights” as extensions of the “Right to Life.” Really?

How can the government do this when it has no means (money) to do so?

This same government does its damnedest to pay for and otherwise facilitate abortion, although the government, per se, has no money. It would seem that “our” government has chosen to steal a thing from the “abortee:” its Right to Life, at the same time stealing the money needed to inflict the abortion, from all of the rest of us. Thou shalt not steal must have severe compromise built into it… hmmph.

One could leap to the presumption that the TWO parents of the human working to be born, had not only some right to copulate but, instantaneously, the OBLIGATION to provide for the child of their union. Further, it would be more honest and fair if there were some punishment or sanction for creating a child while denying any of the coincident obligations. Do they have a “right” to create an obligation for all of us not involved in the procreation? By whose authority?

Birth may be induced within a week or two of due date; other forms of early delivery may be employed up to two MONTHS earlier. In some jurisdictions the proto-mother can elect to terminate that life for convenience’ sake… even to the time of natural birth. Indeed there are instances of babies surviving abortion who have then been “eased” from life after delivery or while their heads are still in the birth canal… on the whim of the mother. That doesn’t seem different from murder.

Wasn’t that live baby a U. S. citizen by virtue of being born on U. S. soil? Who has the right to steal its Right to Life? Who can grant such a right to steal? Thou shalt not steal.

Does not the brand-new U. S. citizen have unalienable rights under the Constitution? Rights like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Was there some point… a single breath, perhaps, at which “we, the People…” invested “our” government with the power to take those rights away from a citizen? That’s a major theft, it seems Prudent to say. That baby owned those rights; they were stolen from him or her. Thou shalt not steal.

Our we-the-People-created government has not only assumed for itself the power to grant the right to murder one’s offspring, a U. S. citizen, for no reason, but also to steal the Right to Life from the recipient of the abortion process.

To sell the idea of child assassination as a net “good” requires a remarkable re-making of beliefs. The person / mother who is responsible for the life gestating within her, almost always sees her own life, and Right to it, as precious, if not sacred. In the course of her re-education she is brought to a belief about the new person for whom she is responsible, that is completely different: her baby has no rights and she has no obligation to defend either the baby or the rights. She must come to believe that the baby is anything but a baby: it’s a mass of cells, like a tumor; or, he or she is a parasite, invading mother’s physical sanctity and convenience. Well, if the re-education is thorough, the removal of the invading mass is “health care,” albeit for only one of the parties involved. At least the parasite has no name and can’t feel anything… the proto-assassin hopes.

Sadly, tragically, this is not the case after just a few weeks of gestation.

Imagine a company the business of which were the aborting of kittens or puppies – say, puppies. The mother dog’s guardian (one cannot “own” another life form we’re told) knows the bitch has allowed to be done to her what dogs do, doggy-style, and is exhibiting signs of pregnancy. The guardian, not wanting the expense of another dog/puppy, or puppies, decides to have some convenient “health-care” performed on the pregnant bitch and the unborn puppies excised… like parasites. “Planned Puppyhood” might then sell the fresh, wet-iced organs of the puppies to “science” for research.

A neighbor of the guardian tells her that she hasn’t noticed “Buttons” running around for a few days and asks if everything is okay… with the dog? “Oh, yes,” says guardian, “she was pregnant and I took her to “Planned Puppyhood” for an abortion; 3 pups were removed. She’ll be home by tonight. Thanks for asking.”

The neighbor recoils in shock. “How could you do such a thing?” she cries. You could have let Buttons give birth and brought the puppies to a shelter! There are places that will take them and find them good homes. Oh, gracious, I feel terrible! I would have taken them!” Neighbor is crying.

“Oh for Heaven’s sake,” exclaims the guardian. Having those puppies would have been more trouble than I could put up with. I just don’t have the time, with work and all. What’s done is done and things will be back to normal going forward. Calm down. I still love Buttons.”

Neighbor shares the tragedy with others and local news gets the story. Do you think PETA and hundreds of pet-lovers and veterinary assistants will be picketing the guardian? Signs will call her a murderer and puppy-hater. She did, after all, STEAL the right of the bitch to give birth to her puppies and nurse them. Thou shalt not steal.

Probably, Planned Puppyhood would never get a permit to open a new facility in guardian’s county: dogs don’t contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns… at least the smart ones don’t.

The facilitators of abortions, that is, proto-mothers (women don’t actually receive abortions, they participate, but the recipient of the abortion is the baby: the abortee, as it were) have developed a great faith in the new meanings of words they’ve been re-taught. The multiple aspects of Life and Humanity NOT being those things MUST BE TRUE. If they aren’t… OMG! Not that they intend the meaning of “OMG” literally, it’s a social media thing, the meaning of which has been stolen by vulgarity.

Apparently, “our” government has perfected stealing and, usually, when theft is the subject, money is the object, in most people’s minds. Some person steals your wallet and everything in it and they have not only your cash but your credit cards and identity. He or she could steal even your house as well as drain your bank account – stealing from your future. God forbid. Clearly there are multiple crimes possible and, let’s hope, “our” government will harshly sanction the thief in every case. After all, everyone recognizes the truth and justice of Thou shalt not steal. Just consider how firmly “our” governments deal with shoplifters after they steal from store-owners.

“That’s not a fair sarcasm,” some automatically say, “those people have insurance against theft.”

Sounds like a definition is being stolen right from under us: “stealing” isn’t stealing if the victim is wealthy, or insured, and not known face-to-face. No kidding? Thou shalt not steal.

Moreover, if “religious” people think that rule is sacred, having come from God – especially Jews or Christians – then to Hell with that. We’re not going to have religious doctrine shoved down our throats, it’s un-Constitutional. Now they’re stealing the meaning of “Constitution,” too. But, back to the money thing.

A truly clever group would want its theft of EVERYONE’S money… I mean, if they had a very damned good reason to pull that off, they would find a way to hide the theft and their hands in it from… well, everyone. To do that they’d have to steal some word definitions such as “Inflation.” Every public commenter, including the smart ones, say “inflation” when they mean “price increases.” Generally the “rate” they talk about is the rate of increase or decrease measured by the “CPI,” the Consumer Price Index. The true “CPI” is comprised of a market “basket” of things that consumers can’t avoid buying in the normal course of providing for themselves and their families. Our government has stolen the meaning of this measure.

The “basket” includes food, cleaning products, clothing, housing, energy, TV, phone and internet services, insurance, transportation, taxes and accounting, health care and medications, maintenance and household services, banking and credit services, education and child-care. There are more, but sustenance and advancement are possible from that list.

Everyone but the wealthy elite agonizes over rapid price increases for items in the market “basket.” It’s heard everywhere: “Eggs used to be 99 cents a dozen, now they’re $4.79!”

“Inflation is high,” someone replies. News commenters refer to the “rate” of inflation as the average rate of, say, 3 and ½% as proof that “our” president’s policies have “brought down” the rate of “inflation.” What a wonderful piece of work. All are misusing the term, “inflation.” By repeated, round-the-clock misuse, the meaning of inflation has been stolen. Here’s a little lesson:

Inflation means inflation of the money supply… simple. Inflation, by itself, doesn’t mean the increase in a price… of any thing. It does, however, REDUCE THE VALUE of all the dollars there are sloshing around the economy: one of the greatest thefts ever devised. Only governments can do that. Thou shalt not steal.

Inflation is a government policy. It’s not caused by changes in the weather or lunar cycles. Politicians decide to use inflation to their advantage, either to buy votes or to cover up errors they have made with other policies. “We, the people” are the last and least consideration when inflation is being contemplated. Any legislation that increases federal spending, cannot, by definition, “reduce” inflation. To say otherwise, perhaps by naming said legislation an “Inflation-Reduction Act,” is a complete lie, told by politicians to their constituents from whom they have just stolen monetary value of savings and pension plans and liquid cash assets. It is not only mendacious, but cruel. Thou shalt not steal.

But, why do prices go up after the government inflates the money supply? Supply and demand: the very essence of economics, trade, valuation of goods and services and, wait for it, TAXES! The insidious economics of “our” (federal) government results from constant “deficit spending:” spending more to operate the government than tax receipts and other revenues can cover, which sounds pretty stupid. But in order to do that, the government borrows the difference, virtually on a daily basis, for which it incurs an interest obligation – all done on “our” behalf.

That interest obligation is now greater than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS per year, and growing. Most of the money borrowed to fill annual “budget” gaps is basically air… (see: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/09/27/knife-edge-election/) … for which we pay real-money interest. It’s the theft that keeps on stealing. When your favorite politician sends you some re-election mail, be sure to send him or her a check, won’t you?

Inflation automatically, in a sense, causes reactionary DE-flationary effects, bringing balance back to the supply of dollars and the supply of goods and services to be purchased. The fastest adjustment is the higher price of things. Eventually, the price of labor also rises. All of these increases generate – wait for it – higher tax revenue! It’s a miracle! Or, it’s a policy… who’d have thought?

So, who can commit such a crime? Who benefits from this theft? Who can even DO the crime? “Our” government, that’s who. The rate of inflation IS high, BUT, and this isn’t good news, as a percentile increase, even the last FOUR presidents have been unable to increase the rate more than a total of 100%!

“Really? Where did it go?” one asks. Why, to the greatest deflationary mechanism ever invented: DEBT! It’s now over $35 Trillion!

“Whose debt is it?” you could rightly ask. Well, it’s YOURS, mine, all of ours. “How will we repay it?” could be the next logical question.

“We can’t unless we run surpluses in the federal budget for the next 50 years or so.”

“When will we do that?” Also a good question. Likely answer:

“Never. Our Reps and Senators will have to change their habits and, right now, their habit is to get re-elected and they have to buy a lot of votes.”

“So, it’s a debt that will never be repaid?”

“Yes. It’s indistinguishable from theft. In this case, the money has been stolen from generations into the future, to whom the thieves will never answer.” Thou shalt not steal.

Along the path of perpetual debt many meanings of words and principles have been stolen… and rights, as well. To maintain the lie of theft-as-debt, we are paying interest, which is a “current” obligation, competing with federal departments, like Defense, for limited resources, along with other key obligations comprised of horse-shit, chicken-shit and bull-shit, not to overlook the mountain of citizen and illegal welfare we feel compelled to pay.

Our “representatives” (a questionable term) have aided in this multi-generational embezzlement for decades, as it buys their votes, too. Aside from a handful in either House: a dozen in the Senate, perhaps thirty in the House of representatives – both parties have facilitated and voted for repeated deficit-spending packages, including “continuing resolutions” that merely continue rates of spending that exceed revenues… over and over and over. They lie, in other words; indeed, they fail to represent our interests TO or AGAINST the government, as directed by our Constitutional covenant. Instead they represent the government to us! They have stolen the term, “representative,” one of the worst of thefts. $35 Trillion. Thou shalt not steal.

Kidnapping is the most heinous of THEFTs and, if there are degrees of heinousness, kidnapping a child is a still greater level of evil. Yet, every weekday we willingly pass off our children to “public” education systems where ideological and unionized teachers and equally warped administrators divert children’s beliefs away from those of their parents. If a person’s beliefs are taken from him or her, it is a theft of the most personal property. Uniquely foul is the daily effort to make children question their own being: boys aren’t actually boys; girls not actually girls. For shame.

Such “teachers”… no, “educators,” are the worst thieves possible: willing to steal children’s selves. Ultimately, they are willing to perfect the theft by having kids be subjected to chemical sterilization and, if they can reach the nadir, surgical mutilation. In the process they may even get to rejoice the theft of the children from their parents, altogether. Oh, the glory! Once a thief… Thou shalt not steal.

Climate, Crime, Culture, Economics, Family, Religion

PARTY OF DEATH

Leave a comment

The United States is, essentially, a “Christian” nation. We were founded by Christians and our fundamental laws and jurisprudence are inspired by the laws and advisories of how to live and love that are contained in the Old and New Testaments. For hundreds of years the lessons of Christ have slowly converted relative pagans into empathetic Christians. It never worked universally; there have always been agnostics and atheists, but until quite lately, they were the outliers. Virtually automatically, the divine lessons and instructions have been modified, structured and even diluted by men (mostly), since they were first revealed. As quickly as Jesus, the Christ, declared His “church,” Peter and his spiritual descendants have seized Christ’s teachings as the means to political power and economic, let alone intellectual, control of “the masses.”

It was unavoidable. We have “free will” and the daily, hourly, momentary opportunity to choose from evil, which seems to lurk around every corner… when not lurking right beside us. Still, prelates of churches based on multiple emphases of certain teachings and of the traditions of Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity, have continued to prod us toward incrementally closer adherence to Christ’s teachings. It worked for centuries, resulting in the evolution of what we call modern ethics and economics… and freedom. Ultimately, the pinnacle of American success was reached, approximately in 1962.

The forces attempting to unseat Christianity have never wavered. The energy they have employed was noted as “early” as the story of the Garden of Eden. As quickly as God had prepared Man and Woman to take dominion over His “garden,” the serpent offered a great temptation. At the moment of choice, God’s creation chose to accept the risk to enjoy the “benefits.” Today we call those temptations “socialism.” Its “benefits” are the promise of avoiding both responsibility and hard work, while having access to everything in creation. Ancillary benefits include debauchery and license to enjoy sexual perversions and the thrills of hatred. No longer would the “serfs” have to earn their own way or face the responsibility for their decisions. Paradise on Earth.

The simplest, clearest distinction between the “forces of God” and the forces of anti-religious socialism can be stated as Life versus Death. God promises not only life on Earth, but eternal life. Socialism promises irresponsible cavort on Earth and then, lights out. Rather than growing both spiritually and physically by accepting the tests and responsibilities, even hardships and opportunities of life, many are tempted to seek comforts, enjoyments and conveniences of life without hardship, unfairness, or injustice, as promised by the sirens of socialism and, even more promissory, Communists. Throughout the growth of the socialist opposition to Christian-based government and economics, Democrat or Social-Democrat political parties have drifted (if not skipped) closer to outright Socialism while pretending to adhere to the traditions of “Western” civilization and civilian governance. But, like all opposition to Christian influence, their efforts are constant – sometimes incremental, sometimes leaping and bounding as they undercut those same traditions in pursuit of power.

Since that same 1962, leftist forces have assumed control of the “Democratic” party. First, they killed Kennedy… not the ordinary Democrats like Johnson and others, but the rabid defenders of the C.I.A. and other elements of the growing, deep, administrative state – the true leftists. One by one, people who overtly dislike everything about religious freedom – Judaism and Christianity, specifically – managed to obtain election to the House and Senate. First through opposition to fighting Communism in Viet-Nam and marshaling students to widespread demonstrations against the government, and then, cherry on top, unseating President Richard Nixon. A new landscape emerged in American politics and power; trust in government was gone. Rebellions of the ‘60’s shifted morality to the dark side as federalized welfare began to erode family strengths and the raising of children to be new, moral, responsible adults. As the old order, the fundament of governance, liberty and improved standards of living, imperfect but wildly successful, was dumped, the new order of Roe v. Wade was imposed on the flimsy premise that the “penumbra of the Constitution” protects a brand of “privacy” that permits personal convenience to be worth more than human life.

Since the explosion of drug addiction as new streams of tar heroin entered the U. S. market from Southeast Asia (thank-you, C.I.A. and the Golden Triangle), the “War on Drugs” has managed to capture tons of drugs and dollars, but the total flow of both has increased for decades. Drugs provide a foul but profitable – and corrupting – business in cities large and small, and a slow-motion suicide process for thousands of addicts. We’ve never had the upper hand on drugs. As we have helped to feed the growth of Mexican Cartels (and their Chinese providers) there has grown a deep division in American politics: Democrats have favored illegal entrants and “sanctuary” status for cities and states, where police cannot cooperate with federal deportation enforcement. Republicans have been opposed to both, and yet thwarted in every attempt to sanction so-called, law-nullifying, “sanctuary” declarations.

Today, drugs, mainly fentanyl, kill 100,000 mostly younger Americans EVERY DAMN YEAR! If we were facing groups of people who were SHOOTING and killing 100,000 Americans every year, this American hopes that we would marshal our forces and destroy them, saving the lives of our sons and daughters. Yet, for some reason, we have neither the wit nor will to stop drugs. Apparently there is a “right” to suicide by addiction. Did I mention profitable corruption? Who opposes rampant addiction? Well, it seems to be a right-wing thing which is condemned by the left (Democrats) since so many people wind up incarcerated for drug dealing. Boo-hoo. There must be a racist component since there is a preponderance of black and brown people breaking laws involving drugs. So, less than nothing is done. Indeed, in Democrat cities there are varieties of programs that FACILITATE drug use on the basis of… hold on to your brains… SAFETY!

A hundred-thousand lives are not enough. The same forces apologizing for drug users are rabidly in favor of abortion up to the moment of birth AND EVEN BEYOND THAT MOMENT. Indeed, they base their election efforts on appealing to women who agree with having the RIGHT to destroy gestating beings. First they must remain convinced that the growth in their bellies is not a human being.

Finally, the same leftists in the U. S. tend strongly toward both globalism (communism) and wars of maintenance (leftists in both parties) where, in effect, our greatest export are young men and women who risk death or disability for circumstances that have no plan for victory. And, still, there are too many Americans.

Democrats have an affinity for globalist fantasy, like “Climate Change,” as the reason to change U. S. policy to the detriment of our economy and, now, our food supply. They’ve gone so far as to advise numbskulls to consider the climate before having children… not before having sex. After all, if something goes “wrong,” we can always kill the product. Instead of promoting a clean, non-polluting economy, they prefer the more fascist approach of restriction, mandation and coercion through economic leverage, like encouraging banks and others to not do business with anyone who threatens the climate, as they see it, or, God forbid, exercises Constitutional rights. This includes changing the technologies of washing machines, stoves, toilets and schoolbuses, and not for the better. After all, a lot of those manufacturers are white people, and of Euro-centric backgrounds who don’t deserve any consideration for climate and a hundred other reasons, especially if Christian to boot.

Covid-19 showed that the W.H.O., China and the U. N. can fool all the people some of the time, but they were able to kill off only a few million humans with the original bug and then the mRNA shots. They’ll have to do something more, ummm… effective, yes, effective, to get the world population down to their “ideal” of a billion or fewer. That many people could eat beef all they want without damaging the Earth. Still, it will take a lot of dying to achieve the “safety” of our planet in a single lifetime.

When it starts, don’t believe a word they say.

Biden, Crime, Economics, Education, Elections, Family, Governance, Immigration, Politics 2024, Representation

CITIZENSHIP (SH)CITY

Leave a comment

The most precious commodity in the World, hard-won and yet expansive, is United States citizenship. Our history as a nation, and as colonies prior, is as well-recorded as that of any nation. Our reasons for independence from our British colonizers and the philosophies upon which we have based our form of government – unique among the nations – are also well-recorded and, indeed, among the best studied in the World.

Sadly, our own citizens – there are some – are among those LEAST AWARE of our own remarkable history and founding purposes. To our shame we have fallen into the communist trap of politicizing our past… not that we can change it, but great effort is being made, even in schools, to change our beliefs about it. With new beliefs rampant – not new truths, new beliefs, we can create new tensions, divisions and social decay in the present. It’s a “plan” of action for some, part of which is the denigration of citizenship and of the United States, itself.

The “plan” has a greater purpose than attacking our nation and citizenship in it. We can see it actively pursued daily and hourly: the denigration of fellow citizens as being somehow “White Supremacists” for our belief in the values and purposes of the U. S. A. That epithet can erase any truths we might speak, as though anyone ACCUSED of White Supremacy is so vile that he or she need not be listened to or acknowledged for our opinions about, well… anything. That is, even if our statements are true and evidence-backed, our having been accused of white supremacy makes them automatically hateful and UN-true. Tails we win, Heads, you lose. What are the values of U.S. citizenship that people have died to protect?

First among all is the protection and guarantee of unalienable rights under our exceptional Constitution. Nowhere else on this planet are people so protected – at least in intent – as in the United States. The most common relationship of governments to citizens / residents of their countries is one of dominance and control and subjective law enforcement. Despite the declamations of Barack Obama and others, the United States IS exceptional and our history proves it. Nowhere else has ANY nation fought a civil war in order to improve its legal structure and end slavery. Indeed, in many places, SLAVERY is still practiced! Even more, it is practiced here in America because of the Mexican cartels and the open-border policies and misfeasance of the Biden administration! Sex slavery and indentured labor is taking place under the guidance and policies of one our most racist presidents since Woodrow Wilson. To our shame… and his.

Next among exceptional protections is equal application of the laws. We have virtually emasculated this protection to our long-term danger. No one is “free” if some are punished according to the law while others, for non-legal reasons, are not. That is, if some are punished extra-legally or only through unusual stretching of word meanings in order to craft charges upon which unique prosecutions may be based. In the latter cases, the typical Constitutional protections are rendered inapplicable for some citizens. Perfect examples of this can be seen in the recent New York State conviction of Donald Trump for financial fraud where, in fact, no fraud occurred and no damage was done to anyone taking part in the questioned transactions. As part of his “judgment,” the judge required that the full value of his outrageous fine must be posted in cash or bond in order to exercise the common right of appeal. The Attorney General for the State of New York had campaigned for that office on a promise to “get” Donald Trump because of a series of unsubstantiated opinions of his political statements and policies during his 2017 – 2021 term as President.

The standards of jurisprudence should apply EQUALLY to all citizens of the United States, else the unique value of U. S. citizenship is cheapened to worthlessness. The politicization of law is the corrosive undermining of the United States that cannot be accomplished by external enemies… only by those of our neighbors who have turned against their own country: purveyors of treason.

In the current atmosphere of “open borders” and conscious failure to enforce immigration law, so-called “Constitutional rights” are being freely sprinkled upon illegal aliens, including, but certainly not limited to, guarantees of legal representation if charged with a crime. That is, upon encouragement for political reasons, to breech our legal, national borders, those entering our country ILLEGALLY, are immediately offered legal representation at the expense of the legal residents of the country. Adding to the IN-justice of government promulgated law-breaking are the cash and other direct benefits to people who have no statutory right to those benefits.

The concept of PRESENCE is, step-by-step, replacing the rights of CITIZENSHIP. Various regulations and laws have been emplaced that prevent agencies of governments that are legitimized by the votes of CITIZENS, from even asking about citizenship status in matters as diverse as drivers’ licensing to renting of housing, census surveys, qualification for public welfare, and, effectively, VOTING! One can fairly question how these rights, privileges and expenses can not only be legally conveyed to illegal entrants, but such questionable conveying may then be hidden from the citizenry on whose behalf, ostensibly, the government agents doing the conveying are supposedly SERVING (“public servants,” they). “It’s the law,” they say.

There must be something wrong with this. The “rights” of illegal entrants have taken precedence over the rights of citizens… citizens who are the ONLY LEGAL CONSTITUENTS of elected officials at any level of government. That is, the covenant between government and those who CREATED the government can apply only to citizens, the protection of citizens, the protection of the rights of CITIZENS and the protection of the property of CITIZENS. There is NO COVENANT with non-citizens. Whoever says or acts differently is a traitor. Simple.

Recent acts by leftist jurisdictions are diluting citizenship at an accelerated rate. In various cities non-citizens are being permitted to vote in “local” elections. Residents of Washington, D.C. even went to court to challenge an ordinance that permits non-citizens to vote in local elections and for ballot measures, even to serve in city government offices! Logically, and what ought to be, reasonably, they argued that U. S. citizens have a right, protected by the Constitution, the 5th and 14th Amendments among other provisions, to govern themselves. Therefore, no non-citizen should be able to govern them. The judge, displaying an all-too-common ignorance and bias against Constitutional Republicanism, ruled that since the plaintiffs had not articulated any damage to themselves, THEY HAD NO STANDING to bring the suit! The reasonable among us would immediately see that any non-citizen’s vote that opposed a citizen’s vote has disenfranchised the CITIZEN. This sounds – and is – illegal to do. Judge, are you paying attention… to anything?

In the immediate travesty-treason of the effective elimination of immigration laws and border protections, U. S. citizens have watched an estimated NINE MILLION illegal entrants swarm into U. S. territory with no meaningful resistance from the federal authorities whose legal charge is to prevent those very actions and results. To pour burning salt onto an open national sore, Democrats have fought off a recent attempt by Republicans to require that Constitutionally mandated census counts be limited to CITIZENS, only. What is the result of this intentional ignorance of the Constitutional covenant with the citizenry of the United States? A foul and subversive distortion of the Electoral College and other “representative” relationships of cities, states and citizens to the federal government.

The Democrat subversion effectively changes the number of representatives in Congress to which a state is entitled under the Constitution! Any reading of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, makes clear that it is the CITIZENS of the United States who are ratifying and PLACING THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO the conditions and RIGHTS embodied therein. Illegal entrants DO NOT HAVE THESE RIGHTS regardless of levels of empathy or sympathy from actual citizens. Ours is a nation of laws… until it isn’t. Shame on ANYONE who claims otherwise or who acts to unseat that truth. For shame.

Compounding the subversion of representation, the counted presence of illegal entrants distorts the number of Electoral College votes to which a state is entitled in the election of a President. This effect shifts elections to works of fraud. They are automatically tilted toward left-leaning states where the largest, strongly Democrat cities are located. It has the potential of disenfranchising large fractions of the states, where the election of Presidents is supposed to reside. It is such a blatant crime that reasonable people cannot believe it is actually happening. Democrats walk among us and even look like regular citizens. They live and work in our neighborhoods. Normal Americans who are concerned with external threats to our existence as a free and self-governing Republic, can’t imagine that fellow citizens would be working so deviously against the existence of our nation and our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights.

How wrong we’ve been. It would be Prudent to fight back and reclaim the legal basis of the United States. We have citizenship, after all. May God bless America.

Culture, Economics, Education, Elections, Family, Governance, Immigration, Politics 2024, Representation, Taxation

THE PARTNERSHIP COVENANT

Leave a comment

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, Oil on Canvas, Howard Chandler Christy

There is a term that is never heard in modern discussions about governance and government and citizens and citizenship. People who care – and pundits who often do not – spend much breath on politicians and on certain policies, issues, fads and economic problems… but, none employs the term, PARTNERSHIP. It is worth our consideration.

Understanding the place of partnership in the American system requires our grasp of the Constitution and its original intent. The Constitution is a COVENANT, not a LAW, necessarily, but a sacred agreement between the people who ratify it – us, at every election – and the people to whom we have granted power to create and protect an orderly society. It’s a bargain… an agreement to treat people equally under the laws that are passed ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS, the private half of the covenant, and it is a set of boundaries to restrain the human tendencies of those blessed with political, legal power, the public half of the covenant, to protect the citizens and to sanction those who commit criminal acts.

This is all well and good, but it is not the real story of the formation of a Constitutional Republic. Why establish a nation, no matter how beautiful or philosophical? Is it because God instructed mankind to take dominion over the Earth, so why not this piece of it and why not our self-selected fraction of mankind? That’s too much hubris for any group.

No. The Constitution was created because people had already formed – and fought for – a nation and national identity called America. People had moved here and were moving here to create better lives in a basically Christian and capitalist format, and their society could neither protect itself or its members without an agreed set of rules and bounds, recognized from within and without. As the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed, upon separation from an unjust form of dominance, the right to “…assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” It is part of the Covenant that the existing population clearly proclaim its claim to certain territory AND the right to govern themselves as they see fit. A Covenant.

It seems Prudent to describe that covenant as a PARTNERSHIP. It is formed to protect the SUCCESS of the citizenry or, at the very least, to protect the opportunities to succeed for each citizen and family. Any government that ceases to “partner” and commences to “provide,” will shortly become tyrannical, for its “provider” attitude is based on a belief in the incompetence of its citizen-partners. It is a tiny slide from that attitude/altitude to believe that those at a “lower” altitude of competence will need rules to live by. This is not to say “rules” to avoid criminality, at least initially, but rules to govern daily, family and personal life. Almost abruptly, the sanctions for failing to follow rules governing one’s person, become new laws, the breech of which demand sanction as if criminal: a “police” state.

Lately, since, say, 1964, American politicians have concerned themselves more with countering or imposing incompetence-inspired “rules” for everyone’s life. Prudent contemplation shows this to be true. Combined with a relatively communistic takeover of education at all levels, the average intelligence, competence, maturity and self-reliance of Americans born since 1960 has plummeted. At the same time, as the administrative state has found reason to multiply the number of rules necessary to enable less competent citizens to survive, those who are more competent and politically connected have become wealthier and commercially controlling, often allying with government to impose even more rules on those of lesser economic standing… rules that political forces have been unable to impose. This is called Fascism, a slightly different-colored form of socialism, but still a police state

How refreshing it would be if a candidate for, well… ANY office, would introduce two rare policies into his or her campaign rhetoric and promises: clear, open honesty, and determination to render his or her future office as a tool for PARTNERING with citizens so that each might be more successful in life. Partnership and truth-telling. What remarkable promises to make, let alone fulfill.

How would a government-citizen partnership operate?

First, it would examine weaknesses in current systems, but that implies that it knows what the countervailing strengths ought to be. We could start with strong families.

There is no structure, program or law in the world, let alone in the United States, that is more effective in creation of “good” children and adults, than functional FAMILIES. At risk of offending a few, those are families with a married mother and father, who are able to provide for themselves and their children. Every threat to successful child-rearing is dramatically lessened in a married-couple environment. Sadly, our own governments, federal, state and county / municipal, are geared up and funded to encourage single-parent family units – the opposite of what actually works the best. We know this to be true in every single jurisdiction, yet we keep growing the socialist, administrative welfare state.

Should our “governors” choose to become partners in our success, the welfare state would be the first place to reform almost everything that comprises it.

The overarching question for any successful society as for any family: “How are the children?” – obviously connects with the state of education, public and private. A true partnership between citizens and government would dictate that government schools, at least, be employed to perform their primary educational mission, while reinforcing the desires and intentions of parents. Fighting with parents over alternate ways to raise children is a decided breech of that partnership covenant implied in the Constitution.

Economic freedom is the key social pillar of success in the modern economy. Partnership by a government granted its powers by the people, would imply that government would neither punish citizens through taxation nor destroy the value of the money they earn. Clearly, Washington and the 50 States’ governors have a long way to go to restore partnership in place of financial serfdom. Not only are those on welfare rendered financial serfs, but so are most taxpayers. On our behalf, our “representatives” and governors have contrived a debt greater than the economic output of the entire nation, soon to require payment of nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in annual interest payment. No effort is underway to reduce that debt or to reduce the deficit spending that adds to it. This is a strange partnership.

Economic independence from the government and from welfare, should be the goal of the government in a Constitutional Republic. That is, the success of our Constitutional structure can be measured only by the reduction in dependence upon that government. A bloated, largely uncontrolled administrative state is the glowing example of FAILURE of our Constitutional system. The only reason it has survived as long as it has is its ability – shrinking ability – to coddle the population and businesses with borrowed “money” and comforts. Now that a roughly communistic presidency has been installed, the ability of the government to continue on this path is nearing its end. Both internal and external forces are gathering against the administrative / executive state. The partnership promised by representation is dissolving with every failure to budget the people’s money, and with every thousand-page “bill.” Soon the nation will be unable to afford to defend itself.

The FIRST job of partnership is to protect the citizenry, not the last.

A true partnership… which is to say, the truth of the Constitutional covenant, would be marked by partnering with every CITIZEN to facilitate his or her enjoyment of the RIGHTS guaranteed by the Constitution. Sadly, the federal and states’ governments are currently consumed with using the Constitution and tens of thousands of laws and rules to CONTROL the people rather than helping each succeed in life. “Expertly managed failure” is how our governors measure their success, not ours. Our success merits some form of punishment amidst a set of accusations and sanctions, even to the point of separating us from our own children. Soon, Americans will be looking for partnership with fellow citizens in order to return our Constitution to supremacy. Certainly the present government will not do so.

May God grant us the ability to accomplish restoration through elections, and the strength to prevail should they fail.

Biden, Crime, Culture, Economics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Obama, Race, Representation, Terrorism

BIDEN’S OBAMINATION

Leave a comment

After the past 3 years of criminal malfeasance on the President’s part, malfeasance that has spread throughout “his” administration, it is time for all Americans to admit to the gross damage that inserting Biden as president has caused. Democrats have nothing to be proud of – and much to answer for – in the matters of the 2020 elections. The possibility that Biden was fairly elected dwindles almost daily. A fair observer should concede that Trump’s suspicion of unprecedented election fraud and wrong-doing is well justified. His frantic attempts to reverse the certifications of “votes” were justified actions of a chief executive officer. Unfortunately, there is neither time nor mechanism to expose distortions as grand and effective as those employed in 2020. January Sixth played out as the phenomenal political hatchet that certain rabid leftists and anti-Trumpers had only dreamed-of hitherto.

As a result of the various crimes and distortions of 2020, Joe Biden and a gaggle of idiots came into power, including for the third time, Barack Obama. Biden, it is clear, has neither the thoughtfulness nor mental capacity to contrive the policies his administration is following. He has never understood history. Neither has he ever judged the nature of foreign leaders properly, accounting for decades of poor decision-making through his Senate and Vice-Presidential tenures. Worse, he is personally weak, leaving him easily manipulated by stronger personalities like the aforementioned Mr. Obama. His declining mental sharpness places the United States’ existence as a world power at existential risk. Woe are we.

It is hard to isolate a single Biden failure to discuss, but it seems Prudent to consider the open borders policies he has fostered. One must ask oneself, “Why in God’s name would anyone with influence in the U. S. promote or favor or allow such policies?” There are two reasons that have been stated over and over in multiple ways, neither good for the USA: 1) Change the demographic majority of our population (white’s need not apply); and 2) Divide the U. S. against itself and weaken it economically. Accomplishing the first will install Democrats forever in power – priority 1 – and accomplishing the second will enable globalism to replace Independence. For shame. We can see a dozen other leftist, anti-American policies working toward the same goals in education, communications, medicine and constant erosion of religious thought, but none will achieve the two main goals as rapidly as Biden’s flood of 10 MILLION or more illegal entrants.

The premises under which Biden acted to carry out Obama’s long-time plan, derive from “Executive Orders,” and were illegal in and of themselves. An executive order by a president can, legally and constitutionally, impact only the executive branch in terms of how the LAWS, passed legislatively and signed into law by a president, shall be executed. An executive order may not prevent the faithful execution of the laws, or set them aside in favor of un-legislated directives put forth by a president on his or her own initiative. However, as Mr Obama is confident of, there are few remedies available in the case of a president’s abuse of power. The only one is “impeachment” in the House followed by conviction by two-thirds of the Senate – a never-accomplished set of actions. No Congress has yet had the political will to carry through an impeachment (allegation) to actual conviction, even when laws have been broken by a president. Hence, “Biden’s” open border policies have remained in place for more than 3 years despite the breaking of and failure of enforcement of, immigration laws.

Millions of words have been spoken and written about the unfolding tragedy and dangers of the failure to enforce our border and immigration laws… except two: “I’m sorry” (for damaging the Nation, the States and hundreds of communities), spoken by Joe Biden. Oddly, no State, even Texas, has yet sued the federal government for imposing costs on States and municipalities in the furtherance of illegal federal actions. Another suit could be filed in federal court concerning those same States and municipalities being forced to not enforce their own laws on behalf of their own citizens. Nor has Biden, himself, been impeached in the House. An illegal travesty continues unabated.

At some point, when the Chinese Communist Party dictates, there will be an horrendous terrorism event inside the United States, perpetrated by some of the thousands of Chinese who have walked into the U. S. and by some of the thousands of entrants from terrorism-sponsoring Muslim countries. Everyone will be upset and casting blame, perhaps even at Joe Biden, who will be long gone or oblivious when it occurs. When it does those Democrats who engineered the certification of Biden’s electoral vote count on January 6th, 2021, will finally offer two words about the open borders policy: “Who, ME?”

Governance, Politics 2024, Responsibility

ARTICLE V

Leave a comment

There is a genius element to Article V. It’s short, providing for the Amendment process, including the option of what amounts to a non-government, people-driven process. It is time for people to get to work employing this Constitutional stroke of genius.

There are two paths to amendment. The first 18 words describe how two-thirds of BOTH houses of congress can propose amendments to the Constitution. The next 21 words stipulate that upon application of two-thirds of the LEGISLATURES of the States, “The Congress” SHALL CALL a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. In either case, the proposed amendments shall be ratified when three-fourths of the legislatures of the States ratify it/them, or when conventions in three-fourths of the states ratify it/them. It does say that The Congress may state which Mode of Ratification shall be used in either case. Americans are not taught much about the Articles of the Constitution, although a lot of time is spent on the Bill of Rights and other hot-button amendments. We should consider carefully what the founders did in Article V.

Article V is the ONLY provision that allows for “re-balancing” our government in the likely event that powers carefully delineated and divided among what seemed to be natural interests in a Republic, became concentrated or ignored as government types trended toward authoritarianism. Wisely, the authors of the Constitution did not trust government. They did their best to send it forth as a government deriving its just powers from the governed. Human nature – and communism, the antithesis of human nature – has come dangerously close to overthrowing the structure of and our existence as, a nation… except that we have a “frame-straightening” tool in Article V. It is referred to as the “Convention of the States.”

Most, if not all of the changes that need to be made to the structure and function of government, have to do with archaic rules and procedures that have become arbitrary and authoritarian in an age of instant and readily manipulable media. In addition, most, if not all, have served to increase the powers of government types, their agencies and departments, while restricting and limiting the freedoms and sovereignty of citizens. The results include near destruction of our fiscal standing and ability to respond to national threats, and to nearly discard the concept of a Constitutional Republic and the majestic nature of American citizenship. Article V provides a way for CITIZENS to petition their State’s legislatures to approve participation in calling for a “Convention of the States” that is not controlled by Congress or any other component of the Federal government. The importance of this CIVIL RIGHT cannot be overstated. 34 states must approve the calling of such a Convention.

There are no limitations on what may be considered for amendment or guidelines as to what must be considered. After 50 to 60 years of diminishing education about the Constitution or about the exceptional nature of U. S. citizenship and our responsibilities as citizens, coupled with severe slippage in moral instruction, religious input or classical philosophy, our existence as an independent nation-state is facing its greatest threat. One element of that threat is how to control the quality and philosophy of delegates from the States to the Convention of the States. Without question, leftists will fight to dominate every delegation, seeing the potential power of amendment as a short-cut to destruction of the American idea and ideals. Those who are in favor of utilizing this unique Article V tool for “fixing” government, must be strongly organized to guide the makeup of delegations that will adhere to the greatest extent possible, to the ideas that underlay the original drafting of the Constitution, itself. What are some corrupting practices that it would be Prudent to correct?

1) Term Limits. Dozens of House and Senate candidates – and Presidential candidates – claim to support “term limits” for elected federal office-holders, but each knows that there is virtually no path for achieving that change if the Congress is to be depended upon to propose that amendment to Article I, Sections 2 and 3. Immediately we hear that… “there already are term limits: they’re called ‘elections.’” While strictly true, it didn’t prevent the worthies in the House and Senate from proposing the Twenty-second Amendment to impose term limits on the office of President. Franklin Roosevelt showed that elections couldn’t be relied upon in the modern era to limit the accumulation of power by elected office-holders. The very same is true for Representatives and Senators.

It doesn’t seem Prudent to create a class of people who CAN’T run for Congress, so a term-limiting that is based on consecutive terms and a stipulated number of terms out of office may be fairer and more practical.

2) Budgeting. Every line item in the ridiculously monstrous Federal Budget deserves SOME oversight and literal forensic analysis. In other words, the actual nature of the work being funded should be analyzed as to effectiveness of achieving the purpose(s) for which the office, title, agency or department was created and originally funded. With somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 such “executive” line items, it is practically impossible to oversee them all. A Republic – a Constitutional Republic – cannot survive or even function according to its covenant with its citizens, when THREE-FOURTHS of its spending is untouchable by the People’s and the States’ representatives. Even more threatening is the flood of regulations that emanates from the “Administrative State” with the force of law, penalty and punishment with virtually no accountability to the People’s and States’ representatives. Standards should be stipulated for retention of ANY federal program.

3) Budgeting. Except in times of declared War, the Federal Government should be limited to collection and expenditure of a maximum percentage of 18% of the Gross Domestic Product of the U. S. economy. Further, the Federal budget should be balanced at that level of expenditure.

4) Taxation. Taxes must be neither punitive nor manipulative, and… everyone should pay his or her fair share. This includes people on public relief as well as billionaires. Rather than the huge jumps in rates that our current “progressive” tax tables use, there should be 28 steps: 1 basic and universal rate and 27 marginal rates up to a total of 28% with very few fixed rates for special types of investment. All 28 rates should adjust every two years in order to balance the federal budget, which should also shift to bi-annual budgeting, set for two-year periods.

5) Entitlements. There is no free lunch. There are a hundred “entitlements” baked into federal expenditures. Disingenuously, Social Security is lumped together with various forms of “welfare” when it is, in fact, a set of contracts with mandated investors. With its codified duplicity, the federal government, spurred on by our Citizen and State representatives in the Congress, has stolen the money in the Social Security Trust Fund, and they’ve done so for about 8 decades. As a band-aid of “exchange” for spending that money on all sorts of unrelated expenses, the Treasury deposits United States interest-bearing bonds in the so-called “trust fund.” Sadly, the ability to continue paying out to legitimate S.S. recipients is dependent upon federal taxation AND borrowing from the future. This makes Social Security, one of the largest taxes on American workers, also one of the largest contributors to U. S. insolvency and a target for leftists whenever challenged about “overspending.”

Today, Social Security is grouped along with other “entitlements,” which makes it subject to the calculations of Congress when it ought to be sacrosanct as a regulated “pay-in, pay-out” system of investment for retirement. Workers and, ostensibly, their employers, are forced to “contribute” up to 15% of payroll to Social Security. The government spends the cash – many hundreds of billions – on numerous critical needs, not least of which are the needs of individuals who never paid into the system. Not only do government bonds generate insufficient returns to cover lawful payouts to those who paid in, but requirements for how long one must pay in and what their payouts will be at certain ages of retirement, are changed for political purposes, not for financial ones. For the past 50 years it has been obvious to the clear-thinking that Social Security was at risk of going bust. Some financial changes have been made, including changes to approved retirement ages, but political calculations have never changed. The attacks on Republicans, who are usually the ones who want to make changes aimed at continued solvency of the Fund, never change. There is a political fear of being accused of “taking away your Social Security” that causes even the smartest politicians to campaign on a promises to “always protect your Social Security.”

What should be included among amendments that can reign in authoritative government, is the essential “privatization of Social Security. That is, that the mandate to fund retirements should be a requirement the dollars of which are owned and carefully managed (by regulated financial advisors) by individuals in funds that will grow at more the twice the rate of the Social Security Fund typically has, and will be part of a family’s estate upon the death of the employee/investor. This will place government into partnership with its citizens in the ultimate success and independence of each one and each family. This will change the current relationship which effectively dictates how independent – or DEPENDENT – every worker and family can be. Individual retirement should not be subject to the historic financial idiocy of the Congress.

6) Federal employment and related costs. Working for the federal government in its hundreds and hundreds of offices, agencies and departments, has become a better career than is common – or average – in the private economy. Federal employees are far less likely to be fired for poor or mal-performance, enjoy more time off and better health coverage and pensions than most workers. Little by little, the role of servant and served have reversed: American workers are basically working and going in to astronomical debt for the benefit of public employees, most of whom are also unionized. Those same are able to use forms of police powers to regulate and restrict the citizens they “serve.”

The relationship of federal employees and their employment security and rates of pay and benefits should be limited to a fair ratio to that of typical employees in the private sector. There should also be upper limits to maximum pay for federal employees and executives. Federal employment needn’t be unpleasant or inadequately compensated, but not so richly, either, that it exceeds the economic safety and comfort of other workers. Further, the ability of supervisors and managers to fire poor employees should be no more difficult than is found in private industry.

It isn’t Prudent to limit the ideas brought forth in the “Convention of the States” to those of any one patriot. The Convention itself, however, is our last best hope to save the future of the United States of America.

Economics, Education, Foreign Policy, Religion, Terrorism

SEPTEMBER (2001) SONG

Leave a comment
Credit to ABC News, 9-11-2001

Prudence recently located these comments by a well-known small-business owner. They were written shortly after the U. S. began the war in Afghanistan, following 9-11-2001. Statistics are pertinent to those days, but the heartfelt admonitions are timeless. Americans, in particular, should reflect upon them.

I believe, and could argue, that the Constitution is the best possible distillation into secular law of Judeo-Christian ethics. Indeed its very simplicity shows that without a shared moral foundation, mere mortals could not long sustain a government with so few vested powers. It is self government, raising the individual to virtually sovereign heights and it requires both free will and self-restraint: self-governance most profound.

If one believes in God’s role in the evolution of mankind from beast to gentleman or innocent creation to energetic dissembler, one recognizes the great good humor of God in providing us free will. Thou mayest choose from evil. We believe, in the world’s richest larder, that our view of civilization is part of a prophecy or destiny; somehow we have taken over from God on this leg of the relay. Now that the baton of life is ours, we decide if the unborn shall win their freedom to simply be on earth, and we, alone, should decide whether God has particular relevance or is only a super-agency to whom we appeal when, in our judgment, our stumbling arrogance delays some gilded wants.

History flows, more or less, away from savagery toward civilization, if not civility. Most societies see truth as relatively good and lies as relatively bad; charity and sacrifice as relatively good, too, with selfishness and greediness sort of bad. The birth of children is almost universally good, while murder is almost universally bad. A many-branched river, either in a torrent or a trickle, moves toward a more civilized social order where those less able are cared for by others more able. It meanders from backwater to swamp as it seeks a path toward a better human condition, but always, we like to think in our fatted West, toward a free and rewarding system very much like our own.

Those who bridle Islam with terrorism, ride its billion-plus souls into acts more heinous than war, attempting, they claim, to rid the earth of whole peoples whom they judge to be impure. Only by removing us and our open, licentious indecency can they preserve their self-perceived more pious way of life. To some of these, at least, our movies, music and overt sexuality are a terrifying rain of bombs upon their children, women and paternalist hegemony. What do we suggest is their proper defense?

The “West” is their unholiest of infidels, preaching depravity with a global, inescapable power of electronic, and cheap, media that is a new force upon the Earth. To Muslims who can renounce terrorism, but who are consciously pious and committed to the Koran – “deeply religious” we might say – there is no negotiation with the blandishments of Satan’s pit – no co-existence with perceived evil. Our only response, devoid of much imagination, is military.

History and our whole social and economic belief structure allows us no other. The President had to act, must act, did act. He has done the “right thing,” albeit with the wrong weapons, one might conclude. Bin-Laden has succeeded and succeeded again in directing our battle against the quarter of the planet that is Islamic. Our protestations of separating terrorism from Mohammedism serve to strengthen our timely coalitions, but fall upon non-believing ears in most of the Islamic world. The falling bombs are indistinguishable from America, itself. The fine points of selective targeting and diplomacy are lost on the millions who choose not to be like us, who are readily, almost eagerly, led by practiced haters. We sit in judgment of their failures to lead the world in technology, human rights and materialism. Our comforts and prosperity are not the fundament of their aspirations and our discussions of why certain fellow-Muslims must be killed are strictly one-way. We see ourselves as able to spank the errant billion, followed by immediate hugs and comfortings so they will realize we truly love them, but their bad-seed brothers had to go.

Why do they hate us so much? That is the question posed by our deepest thinkers.

“The West” has not only conquered communications, but has ringed the planet with satellites, effectively creating a sea of electronic trash through which Earth spins and rotates, year upon year. Television shows and movies that extol everything from abortion to homosexuality, murder to free sex, flood the airwaves. Books and magazines replete with same, are hawked from Zimbabwe to Mongolia. Not even China can stem the tide. We are angry at the Falwells and Robertsons who deign to point out that God can bless only the good, that His laws are completely Just, that He, Himself exists according to them with absolutely no ability to compartmentalize sinfulness. But, we say, throughout history America has been kind to its vanquished foes. Surely we can all see that this attack on Afghanistan will soon be good for them? God bless America; sing it loud. Drop the bombs of righteousness.

How will we know if the war on terrorism is won? So far we have proven that we can destroy Afghanistan’s tallest buildings as a sort of grandiose tit-for-tat. They are, of course, only a few stories tall. The political support for war, however, depends on both clarity of mission and conclusively good news about its fulfillment. There isn’t going to be much of either. We may not find Bin-Laden very quickly and already proclaim at every juncture that he is only one of many and that catching him is not the only goal. Will we, as in the war on drugs, proclaim the capture or death of some terrorist functionary to be of equal importance? Can we manufacture some interdicted tons of success sufficient to justify the whole war effort? Will Americans buy it? When the next terrorist action occurs will we accept that the need for more war-making is ever more justified? And the next?

And the next?

These questions are are not asked idly. A couple of ounces of powdered anthrax spores have place the nation on edge as almost no other mechanism might do. We readily conceive of fighting fire with fire, as it were, but with what do we fight disease? There is nothing. Cure the sick and worry. Cure the sick and fear.

Imagine a balloon-borne twenty pound tube of this anthrax stuff freely dispersing its load over, say, Chicago. A couple of square miles of city could be powdered and the ensuing panic, growing from media-spread spores of its own, would effectively shut that city down. People would flee, perhaps only to be prevented, possibly(?) from leaving until tested. Some sort of quarantine would be deemed necessary and, most certainly, travel to that entire region would cease. Talk about ripples in the economy. With the populace already so on edge as to run from spilled confetti, so many activities would cease that depression, not recession, would follow.

Not even the U. S. can absorb the costs of abject fear and still prosecute an endless war. The costs of terrorism we have only slightly begun to imagine. The politics of terrorism are also waiting to be unleashed.

The risk is greatest for President Bush. Everyone is backing him, now, in our newfound patriotism, but such high approval ratings are fleeting, in our history. George, the first, had a ninety percent rating eleven months before losing to Bill Clinton. With limited war news to prove his policies are both righteous and right, Bush will quickly be blamed by his enemies when the next big terrorist attack occurs. Every speech made includes an admonishment to prepare for more attacks and some comment about how we are preparing, nationally, for what, everything? But, when the ax falls, it is the President who will be blamed, however unfairly. Careful, methodical thinking and planning could fly out the window, then – and covert operations become overt.

Internationally, should America strike out in political anger rather than simple righteous vengeance, coalitions will fracture into alliances, neutral states and declared enemies. Then what? Terror groups will unleash everything they have; the U. S. will bomb population centers, world trade will slow to a trickle and a dozen opportunities to settle old differences, like Taiwan, Kashmir, Israel and South Korea, will be exercised by virulent enemies who are held in check now by our flexible willingness to oppose them. Like Gulliver, the Lilliputians will tie America down with a thousand tiny battles.

The most dangerous condition in the World is a lack of understanding of what the United States will finally fight for. So long as that point is not reached, we can push and pull and trade and buy a continued flow toward civilization. But when that line is crossed and should enemies in waiting decide that then is the time to fight their own battles, the possibilities of either a huge escalation or retreat into armed isolationism become real. Then the global power centers will shift. Wartime alliance or power vacuum. Either way, the future we have been hazily expecting will be replaced with another that we won’t control. A dark, sheer precipice terminates many of the paths we might take.

I see no one in the Congress who has the wisdom to advise the President better than what he is doing already. Neither do I see a happy ending for most of the right actions he might take. How I wish we, as a nation, had not been spending so much effort to turn our backs on God and His commandments. Perhaps we should have let in some of those aborted in the past thirty years. Now would be a very good time to turn to Him if He is still willing to hear us. With love, Bob Wescott.

Economics, Education, Family, Race, Religion, Responsibility, Sex, Taxation

AMERICA – Article III

Leave a comment

A major factor in the success of the United States and its economic freedom (among other freedoms) is the honesty and relative strictness of its judiciary, both federal and State. The honesty of contracts at every level, including the contract between the American people and the federal government: the Constitution, relies increasingly upon the Supreme Court, the final arbiter.

Article III details the legal circumstances that require original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which means that the supreme court is the first, and only Court, that can hear those cases and rule upon the issues in conflict. In all other cases – and there are hundreds – the Court must agree to accept an appeal from litigants who not only aren’t satisfied with the decision made, but who also believe there is a Constitutional issue involved in their conflicting claims. At least four Justices must agree to accept a case, and one of them is likely to write an opinion, if not THE opinion that will form the Court’s ruling. It takes time. When the majority opinion is delivered there usually is a dissenting opinion. Lawyers everywhere study both. Crucial interpretations of Constitutional issues will form arguments in other cases. Sometimes the issues raised in the dissenting, or minority opinion, will be refined to bolster other cases. The written words of the Supreme Court are critical to our success as a nation.

The Congress is given the power to establish inferior federal courts and charge them with certain authorities over types of crime or types of conflicts. There are courts for immigration matters, for example, or for tax issues, and several others. The country is divided into 12 “Circuits” and Justices often visit those Circuits. See https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure for a comprehensive view of federal court structure.

Leftism consistently challenges our Constitutional Republic. Socialism / Communism is inherently counter to the structure of morality and individual responsibility that is embodied in the Constitution. Freedom includes the freedom to fail, to try again and to make choices about how to advance in life. Forces of the left consistently attempt to tie individuals to government rules and regulations. This can be seen in attacks on religion and in unionized “public” education, itself. Little by little, leftist philosophies, even direct Marxism, like “minimum wage” laws, constantly distort our economy and increase dependence on government. These stresses generate social-issue conflicts that threaten domestic tranquility and even personal safety. This places immense public, if not mob pressure, on the Court and on individual Justices. Starting with Judge Robert Bork in 1987, the left – personified by Senator Ted Kennedy, an avowed socialist – has attacked and refused to compromise with “conservatism” in any form.

Leftist, or “Progressive” policies, inherently are on the attack against the premises and ideas expressed in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was and is charged with primary defense of the ideas underpinning the Constitution. Judge Bork represented a shift away from leftist activism on the Supreme Court. The retiring Justice, Lewis Powell had often been the swing vote on issues like abortion, tilting the Court to the left. Bork was a strict constructionist, unswayed by social pressures. To leftists like Kennedy, that threat of a shift away from the attack on original intent, was a threat so serious that the destruction of the reputation of an esteemed legal scholar like Bork, was well worth the effort. The attacks continue, as evidenced by the violent reaction to the reversal of Roe versus Wade in the “Dobbs” decision in 2022.

Among our “Unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence are “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Within them has developed a severe conflict, mainly due to the equality of status that women have acquired since the beginning of the United States. “Liberty” and “Happiness” both depend upon freedom of action by individuals. Pregnancy, uniquely, with its 9-month period of physical commitment and subsequent lifetime obligations, can interfere, unquestionably, with happiness and liberty of the pregnant woman. So far, we have not found a balance between the rights of the mother/parent, and those of the baby growing inside her.

Does the right to LIFE take precedence? Many think so. Do the rights of the mother take precedence? Many believe this is so. Mainly non-religious, non-Christian or anti-Christian persons, are pleased to take dominion over natural life, and grant women the absolute right to abort their child. Religious people tend to support the rights of the new life to be born and to thrive after birth. They are “pro-life.” Abortion absolutists have done their best to pervert the meaning of conception and of what a fetus actually is: a human baby, growing. Inevitably, this conflict landed in the Supreme Court. Sadly, Roe versus Wade resulted in more than 60 Million Americans being aborted, most of whom were growing inside women of color. It is a number that should give Anti-life believers some pause.

The Supreme Court makes mistakes. The “Dred Scott” decision is recognized as the worst of them, as Chief Justice Roger Taney attempted to undo several state and federal laws governing the status of slaves and even of any free negro citizen. Taney went so far as to declare the Missouri Compromise un-Constitutional and to state that the concept of “free soil” and freedom of slaves who resided there, was constitutionally unenforceable and need not be recognized by other territories or states. The decision helped to push the South to secession and proved to be recognized in its disregard among free states and territories. The 13th amendment made Taney’s decisions moot.

Another simpler, but still egregious decision was the “Kelo” decision: a 7-year battle over the “taking” of private property for public use, that was decided – many feel, wrongly – in 2005. The city of New London, Connecticut, decided that development of land next to a new Pfizer plant, would increase tax receipts to the city, and therefore qualified as a public good. Unfortunately, Suzette Kelo and her neighbors lived on that land, many on long-time homesteads, in perfectly acceptable, non-condemned homes. The city turned the land over to a new, semi-private development Commission along with the power of “eminent domain,” with which the Commission forced homeowners to sell their real estate. Tragically, The Supreme Court interpreted the “taking” clause in the 5th Amendment to include not only the clearly stated “public use,” like a school or water treatment plant, but for an amorphous “expected benefit” for the public, such as increased tax revenues might provide. In other words, amazingly, “public use” was interpreted to include “private use” if it raised more taxes than current landowners provided. Several States have amended their own laws to prevent exactly the premise of the Kelo decision.

The American public is right to challenge the Supreme Court and, through the Senate, to carefully examine the beliefs of nominees to the Supreme Court. As political conflicts, largely fomented by the Left, become more heated and hateful, the ability of Justices to ignore such matters becomes ever more difficult. It is more crucial than ever that the strength and intention of the Court must be to preserve the originating ideas and ideals of the Constitution, resisting all attempts, regardless of political heat, to drift, stumble or run-away from them.

Elections, Foreign Policy, Governance, Politics 2023, Politics 2024, Responsibility

AMERICA – Article II

Leave a comment

The second-most important “branch” of our Republic’s government is the Executive. To most people, this means the President, or “The White House.” It is much, much larger than that – grievously so. There is no accurate count of the number of Departments, Agencies, Offices and Titles that are funded, almost without question or oversight, in the sloppy budgeting process that Congress standardly fails to control. The total is well over a thousand; how close to two thousand, no one can tell. If Congress were forced to oversee every line-item in the budget, we’d probably see a quick reduction, consolidation or elimination of hundreds of these tax-consuming, practically parasitic entities. But Article II is about the powers of the Executive, how he (or she) is elected, and to what actions the President and his/her appointees are sworn.

Mostly, voters and other citizens (we hope, citizens) are concerned about and are told about how well the President is fulfilling his promises in office. The President is NOT the most powerful person in his “administration.” Who is, varies.

Among the “big” Departments – “Cabinet-level Departments” – are Defense, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Labor, State, Transportation and Veterans Affairs. Originally, there were just 4 men who comprised Washington’s “cabinet,” a relatively informal group of advisors: Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War, Henry Knox and Attorney General, Edmund Randolph. Each was a “founder” of the new nation and involved in the creation of the Constitution. Each had his views of how the government should be administered and what the Federal Government’s interactions with “the people” and with the States, should be. We are still deciding.

Washington’s status was such that no one was prepared to attack him directly, but political parties soon developed as politically powerful leaders like Hamilton and Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Monroe, among others, and Jackson, later, sought followers to their views. These were the “factions” that were feared by Madison and others writing in the “Federalist Papers.” Washington sought statesmanship from his advisors… like his own. But it became rarer and rarer as party factionalism took hold. The framers of the Constitution expected loyalty to States to be the competing interests that would, in effect, strengthen the new Union of States. Party factionalism, as we can see today, has nearly obliterated those sovereign concerns, as Federal power has become the big prize… and source of wealth both licit and illicit.

The election of a President is done by the Electoral College, one of the earliest topics in Article II, to which 376 words are devoted. The framers, fairly fresh from the Revolutionary War, were very concerned about the creation of an executive officer, having lately fought against executive excess. They did not want the selection process to be “democracy” without severe restrictions that protected the rights of States. The model Republic they hoped to create would have “checks” and “balances” on executive power and even on legislative power. As much as was workable – if not practical – they wanted a chance for statesmanship and reflection to filter out “faction” and emotion in the selection of a President. Their wisdom resulted in the Electoral College. Today we can see the Constitutional mechanisms that are most worth defending by the nature of the heated emotions that wish to sidestep them, altogether. Every Presidential “election” is blanketed with statistics about the “popular vote,” especially when the Electoral winner received fewer votes in gross total than the person who did not win in the Electoral college. That he or she did or didn’t is immaterial; but the “popular vote” is announced by all media as if it mattered.

The Constitution does not provide for National elections; we have State elections, now 50 of them, by law on the same day. Every 4 years, citizens of the 50 states elect slates of Electors who will later vote in the “Electoral College” for the President / Vice-President “ticket” to which they are committed, having gained a majority or a plurality of the popular vote in their respective States. Every State’s election stands on its own, irrespective of the size of the majority or plurality of the popular vote in other states. We employ democratic process to elect people whose Constitutional function strengthens the REPUBLIC. The REPUBLIC is strengthened by the federation of its sovereign States; the rights and sovereignty of those States must be protected and defended by the powers ceded to the federal government. It was the citizens of States – States that pre-existed the federal government and the federation, itself – who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments without which ratification would have been impossible.

The two keys to our Republic’s success and endurance include an EXECUTIVE who is checked by the power of the people – expressed in Congress – and, as John Adams incisively stated (one might say, predicted), “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We have embarked on a course of denying government responsibility for promoting morality. Indeed, we are rushing to make legal immoral actions in order for governments at every level to share in their illicit proceeds. What a foul recalculation of the meaning of liberty.

Presidents after Washington have pressed for greater freedom of action without the slow action of Congress, almost continuously. Abraham Lincoln was the first to suspend basic rights due to the emergencies of the Civil War. The relationship of the federal government to individual citizens changed dramatically in the years following, and even before the end of Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation applied Executive power to the problems of black individuals in multiple states. Following the war a federal agency, the “Pension Office” under the authority of the “Commissioner of Pensions” organized to evaluate claims due to both physical and mental injuries incurred during the Civil War. Today there are, as noted above, well over 1,000 federal agencies and departments. Ostensibly, the President directs their work and function but, in fact, most of the Executive “branch” runs on its own, including lobbying Congress for never-ending funding and support.

The President is charged with being the “Commander in Chief” of the Army and Navy (and added military branches, now) AND OF THE “Militias” of the several states when called into service of the United States. Who those “Militias” are is not well-defined, although referenced in the Constitution and in the Second Amendment. Pre-existing the Army, the “National Guard” grew from colonial militias who defended against “Indian” attack, especially as the “frontier” encroached on Native lands, and later against the French and their native allies.

The “Army” was created from the Militias and State “Guards” during the Revolutionary War. Had it not been for General George Washington’s personal leadership, the Revolution would have failed as soldiers completed their periods of voluntary service, but who stayed to complete Washington’s mission of independence. It is difficult to grasp the privation and sacrifice required to pursue the war with Britain; few in today’s America are capable of what Revolutionary soldiers endured.

The Minutemen of Massachusetts grew, purposefully, out of the regiments of Militia. They were trained by veterans of the Indian and French-Indian wars and were the defenders against the British at Lexington and Concord, as the British sought to disarm the colonists. More regiments from Massachusetts served in the “Continental Army” than from any other colony/State, and formed the basis of the United States Army. The President is charged, ultimately, with command – and DEPLOYMENT – of all of the military forces, including calling up Reserve troops and the National Guard(s) of the several States, WITHOUT a declaration of a state of War, which only the Congress can effect. The “War Powers Act” in 1973, changed the basic relationship dictated by the Constitution.

In response to President Nixon’s secret bombing campaign in Cambodia during the Vietnam War, Congress attempted to reign in the creeping expansion of Presidential powers as Commander in Chief. Still, it recognized the perceived need for swift response to armed actions almost anywhere in the world where the PRESIDENT can articulate (within 48 hours of taking military action for up to 60 days without further Congressional approval) a “national interest” of the United States. This is a codification of the U. S.’s perceived role as “the world’s policeman,” and a dangerous relinquishing of Congressional, and, therefore, States’ authority over the commitment of their citizens to actions of deadly threat. All in all it is a stark example of how the Executive has become the super-representative of “the American people,” basically in opposition to Congress’ Constitutional power of representing the will of the citizens of the several States.

Since the end of World War II, and most particularly following the assassination of President Kennedy, the “federal” government has rushed to become a “National” government, directly undercutting the design of the Constitution for a Republic of united, somewhat sovereign States. Every heated declaration of “threat to our democracy” or “protecting our democracy” is premised on the desire for pure “majority rule” in the wielding of “national” power, no matter how temporarily a majority might be created for any cause or idea, rather than a republic-like careful deliberation and application of wisdom before action is taken or changes to governance made.

Constant reference to the Constitution and its amendments, is necessary to measure how far we have drifted from, and how much further some wish for us to drift from, the ideals and responsibilities of the American experiment and the “limited” Executive thereof.

Economics, Elections, Governance, Representation, Taxation

AMERICA – Article I

Leave a comment

Our Constitution has seven Articles, or “topic sections,” in a sense. The longest and most important, is the first. It describes the bi-cameral Congress. While both Senators and Representatives are members of Congress, we have customarily called Representatives, “Congressmen or Congresswomen;” Senators are Senators. However, members of both “Houses” are members of Congress. Congress OUGHT to be the most important of the three branches of government. It represents the people of the States (Representatives) and the States, themselves (Senators), at least that is the original design. That design has been weakened variously and repeatedly by those who don’t trust small-r “republicanism.” Those are they who proclaim that the United States is a “democracy,” which is intentionally NOT the basic covenant embodied in the Preamble or in the Constitution, itself.

Before we dig deeper into Article I, we must illuminate the problems inherent in “democracy.” Like many, you have probably been convinced to revere democracy when, in fact, it must be carefully constrained in order to serve the government proposed by the Constitution, a real vessel for reverence. Prudence would instruct that democracy is only a mechanism for selecting our representatives, the most crucial of the members of Congress.

Inevitably, the more power allowed to democracy, the more likely that the government will become authoritarian and no longer a partner with its citizens in their success. Democracy gains power from majority action, only. The majority rules in “a democracy.” There are no protections for minority interests. The intended partnership role of our government of the people, by the people and for the people, will quickly degrade to protection of the government and the governors, which we see now in 2023. What has this to do with democracy or the Senate?

The Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of the STATES, whose sovereignty in our FEDERATION, was paramount for many in the Convention and many in the country (and still should be). Every State had its interests and every Senator had reason to respect the will of his or her State’s legislature. In other words, Senators had to answer to a very small set of representatives of their State’s population. Those worthies ought to have had the needs of their States uppermost in their minds, and could not be ignored at the times of choosing their Senators. Senators were supposed to be responsible to their States’ interests.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913, a most dangerous period for our Republic and for republicanism. It changed the election of Senators to statewide popular voting – pure democracy with almost no accountability, in fact. Since then, the quality of Senators has declined significantly, on average. Democracy places more power in the hands of power and money “brokers,” as it were. Being accountable to everyone has meant being accountable to no one… no one, that is, except the leaders of the Senate and their control of their parties, and of sources of campaign funds.

Pure democracy also is subject to temporary, sometimes mob-like majority emotions. This was recognized in ancient Greece and is an even greater threat in the world of social media, 24–7 news media and widespread (planned) ignorance of reality and history. The mechanism of a Republic filters out those emotions. Citizens must choose the best among them to represent their interests TO the government; States would go through two stages of selection: first to their legislatures and Governors and then to their subsequent appointments of Senators. The Senate, with its longer terms, limited membership and fractional replacement, should be the more thoughtful and, dare we say, wise house of Congress. It’s design is intended to prevent emotional response and to be more accountable for its actions. Much of that “shock-absorber” function was thrown out with the switch to direct election in 1913. For shame.

Still, there are two houses of Congress and both must approve legislation, ostensibly a brake on foolish ideas. In the two-party fog of war, however, and the lack of limits on terms, it serves more effectively to stop good ideas. Abortion, for example can be hotly defended while balancing the budget is set aside. Worse, the Congress has, since the end of the Civil War, rushed to devolve its responsibilities and hand them to the (unelected and virtually un-fire-able) administrative state. About three-fourths of the federal “budget” is in the realm of entitlements or pensions, and “State-aid,” Federal dollars paid out to a thousand programs that States ostensibly control (or misapply). Those dollars twist the sovereignty of states and the thought processes of representatives and senators: No state should receive an unfair allotment of federal largesse. Federal dollars come as if by magic, with many of them being borrowed from the unbelievably distant future, sidestepping the responsibility of raising taxes to obtain them. Congress, both Houses, have “bought into” this sham. There is little statesmanship to point to among the whole number of them.

The most important power of the House of Representatives is to initiate any raising or, as virtually never happens, reducing of revenues. This includes raising taxes or changing tax rates. The Senate must concur, including amendments to bills, so they are nearly as involved in budgets as the House, including in terms of shucking responsibilities in favor of the administrative state.

Other powers of Congress include BORROWING against the full faith and credit of the United States; Coining money and regulating the value thereof; Set uniform rules of naturalization (for legal immigrants); to regulate commerce with other nations and among the several States; to promote the advancement of the sciences and protect invention and copyrights; to declare war including raising the Army and the Navy; to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the United States, and to suppress Insurrections and repel invasions. Among other things.

The Congress is also charged with making laws necessary to effect Execution of the laws passed for operation of the Government and any agency or Department thereof. This last has proven to be the greatest threat to the “Blessings of Liberty” ordained in the Preamble. Hence the administrative and nearly perpetual state, busy passing regulations that are enforced as if at the status of enacted Law. For shame.

The discussion of Article I has, unfortunately, been mostly a rendition of what is failing in Congress and in the operations of Congress, and how far afield from the intentions of republican governance Congress has strayed. It is intensely advised, and Prudent, that Americans study Article I and reflect on history and the events of the past 30 years or so. Congress needs reconstruction as much as the South did in 1866, for it has engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, attempting to overthrow it by divesting Congress, itself, from its responsibilities. The United States is nearly $34 Trillion in debt.

[ See: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/09/27/knife-edge-election/ ]

Keeping America Honest