The Union Is Broken

December 8, 2012

Many in this nation are dismayed with the results of the most recent national election. The fraud is unimaginable[1].  To make matters worse the GOP has made a deal with the devil[2].  Perhaps it was just because it didn’t want to be viewed as unkind in 1982 that they signed a consent decree that waived their right to pursue voter fraud against Democrat candidates or particularly their minority-dominant precincts and jurisdictions.  So in recent years the new normal is fraud in numbers of these jurisdictions with the GOP challengers having their hands tied about pursuing legal recourse.  Talk about the new enslavements.  Not only is the expectation that the Democrat Party has the ownership of the minority voters but that the increasing numbers of any minority who express their democratic opinion into any contrary political thought are disenfranchised[3].  Historically, it was the Democrats who opposed the Abolitionists during the 19th century and they stood up again against the Integration moves of the 20th century.  It is these same Democrats today who oppose school choice that would allow minorities a path out of some the worst social and economic plights of any demographic[4].   The Democrats have formed other alliances with the mob that is known as the AFL-CIO[5].  The current occupant of the WH wants to cement this alliance even more by endeavoring to replace democratic processes of organizing labor with the so-called “Card-Check” option to place the labor goons in commanding roles over the powerless worker.  When laborers have spoken without interference they have significantly chosen no labor union.  But the liberal Democrat Party doesn’t seem to want the choice of these persons to gain such expression.  This writer thinks that it is time for a new “Emancipation Proclamation” that would free the slaves of these three and more categories of American citizens[6].  We need to abolish the agreement the shackles any one party from pursuing vote fraud issues. While we are at it, we should remove the protection afforded unions from their violent and destructive practices which are frequent with their power struggles.

These indications make it clear that the body politic is far from being in union.  It seems that the notion of a United States is in name only and that the union is broken.   I am offering discussion on two radical proposals and two more modest propositions to heal the losses of voter significance in the election process.  In the end I will offer an observation of significance to speak to the stability of the American experience.

Two Radical Options to Deal with Profound Division of Political Philosophy in Our American Republic

I offer two innovations which have come to me that could minimize this disaffection for the political process in our broken union.  Both have been employed elsewhere in recent history and more.  One option is the partition of the national entity to reflect favored philosophies of the citizens of the several regions of the whole[7]. Another more traditional one is that of a parliamentary republic[8].    In the first instance, one might choose to call one entity the “Red States Confederation of America” and the other as the “Blue States Nation of America.”  I offer more discussion following.  In the second instance you might be able to still call this new arrangement as a “United States of America.”

Case #1:  Create a partition of the political nation

The “red” and “blue” states notation in election results may be a way of establishing two separate nations.  Consider if the region of the country that identify with the “blue” political philosophy were released from their dependence upon their opposition from the “red” states, they could continue their experimentation with the statist notion of an over-bearing big government model without regard for personal liberty, etc[9].  Remember, the statists were elected by that constituency with which they seek to extend their government’s largesse.  I feel sorry for the electorate but they should never question that they get what they deserve in this transaction.  This throws down the gauntlet and offers the challenge to “compete”.

Experimentation was suggested implying an alternate hypothesis of some sort.  A view of the alternate hypothesis that I may project would result from a confederation of the “red states” in which a much smaller role for a central government is envisioned.  When the confederation that is proposed is realized, the significant shift from central government to the states of that confederation would be the telling characteristic of the new nation.  There would be a national governing entity to take care of defense and immigration and other foreign affairs.  But its constitution would be the basis for its being rather than it’s ever growing interest to expand its role.  The constitution may look a lot like the original U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights.  Other amendments could be considered carefully.  Yet I suspect that amendments XVI, XVII, XVIII and XXI would all be eliminated.  There would no doubt be fewer cabinet secretaries and certainly no unelected czars.  Consumption taxes collected on top of existing state and local sales taxes might be the best way to provide revenue for the national confederate governing entity.  Generic Americans certainly love the idea of competing in games of sports.  This proposed experimentation of alternate governing models could be a fun game to see played out.  Like golf it could be played and scored on the basis per capit national debt.  Of course we would need to devise a plan to handicap its score by sharing the current U.S. national debt (likely on some per capita basis).  That is a handicap (to be sure) but one that each must recognize to have a share[10].  After some time, the winning team will be described as having the lowest score.

This leads to question of process.  The first motion for secession that I became aware of was a group in Louisiana[11] that has started a petition to withdraw (secede) from the United States for reasons stated that parallel the grievances against the English King enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.  Many other petitions caught on among other states[12] that sense the same grievances vis-à-vis the federal government.  For such proposed peaceful withdrawals from the “union” to move forward I am thinking that a treaty will need be drawn together and submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification pending ratification by the several states that may desire to withdraw.  Any such state that initiates a withdrawal action would ratify the treaty by some likely combination of legislative transaction and a popular referendum by the particular state.  Perhaps the 2014 mid-term election would be a suitable time to conduct such referenda.  Then, over the successive few years, the several states that make the decisive move to secede would organize a constitutional convention to erect the structure of their shared confederation.  It is difficult to predict the numerous details that would need to be spelled out and negotiated including means for collecting revenue to make the new structure work as well as for paying down the national debt handicap.  A new seat of government may be very lean and may be substantially distributed with functionaries and legislative members linked through cyber channels.  This may keep the governing personnel in much closer contact with the governed constituents and at the same time be less exposed to influential lobbyist.  Per chance that geographic dispersion may help to keep the special interests groups from exploding the function of government to promote their particular self-serving purposes.

So what benefits will this new national political entity offer for its citizenry?  Hopefully the new entity may pursue energy independence by developing the rich resources of petroleum fields in off-shore waters not yet opened[13].  The Keystone Pipeline may be entirely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the new political entity[14] and would further spur the energy equation.  Obviously these efforts will bring jobs and predictably these may come with right-to-work encouragements with the commensurate benefits to both employer and employee.  The engine of industry will produce wealth that could eventually eliminate the debt and perhaps be the money bags that can hold the indebtedness of neighboring fast-spending nations.  Imagine the prospect of the new upstart owning the assets of the nation out of which it has come.  The tendency to gloat should not be followed.  Rather, such success should be offered for exportation wherein the generic Americans outside of the confederation might be annexed to their more successful brothers.  We must be ready to share the lessons learned by our experimental partition.  Of course, the a priori assumption presented in this writing may be ultimately wrong.  With good will, we should likewise hope that a contrary flow be accommodated should the aspirations of this schemer fail to materialize.

Having proposed this radical scheme, it is clearly recognized that very few (probably none) of the so-called “red states” are monolithic entities with all of their citizenry disposed to secede from the federal body.  Might there be an accommodation for those citizens?  Perhaps a system of reservations in which within defined geographic boundaries a council from each reservation could govern the separated entity with relations maintained with the Washington-based government.  In the same way that Washington D.C. has a representative to Congress, the multiple enclaves that persist in the federal orbit could be granted similar representation.  Strategically, the federal government of the mother country may wish to maintain certain facilities within the confines of the new confederation even as they maintain multiple bases already around the world.  Lease arrangements to these geographies may certainly be considered and subject to appropriate negotiation.  Even in these instances, locals may have employment and gain from their presence even though they are essentially foreign to the government which operates these bases.  The key to making any of these arrangement actually work involves a determined peaceful understanding established between the separated bodies.  Perhaps that is only wishful thinking remembering that the Declaration of Independence was written particularly to gain the redress of grievances and not as a declaration of war.  We know that war followed that process in spite of the polite statement of facts.  The petitioners in Louisiana asked for a peaceful result.  Likewise, I want a peaceful consideration of this proposition or of any others of like manner seeking appropriate redress.  Yet, I also know that there are bound to be numbers of people who are apt to be incensed that anyone should duck out of the ride that the nation is currently taking over the cliff.  But knowing that doesn’t mean that a meaningful conversation cannot be made to protect the integrity of well-meaning people.

Case #2: A Parliamentary Republic of America

In a parliamentary republic, citizens will directly elect their members of parliament as their constituent representatives as we do know in our congressional districts.  The members of parliament will have a personality that the voters may hold accountable to represent their political persuasions.  Their caucuses will select their party leader from among their own members and the voters will know their options in an election in terms of who might succeed to the role of a prime minister as they cast their ballot for their constituent representative.  As an aside, imagine what would be the situation should the current elected House of Representatives be in the position to elect the Prime Minister (president).  Again, after the 2010 election we would not have a Barack Obama as he is.  With a parliamentary model, any party/caucus leader would have a demonstrated history of leadership among his colleagues and by virtue of their trust that would evoke a leadership to tackle issues and do a commendable job of governing.  They together would create and pass budgets and follow a shared agenda for governing by being a majority coalition.  If during the watch of a governments leadership the prime minister fails to perform appropriate efforts to assure the security of the nation’s interest (e.g., Benghazi, Fast and Furious), the crisis would force an election if the people’s representatives find that the leadership can no longer project confidence.  The people’s representatives would demand full disclosure without which the failure of confidence would necessarily follow.

There are some dangers in the parliamentary option such as a “stuffed shirt” leader who comes along and tells the public and her colleagues that “We have to pass this bill in order to find out what is in it.”  The danger of getting an “empty shirt” upstart who has never worked to develop a consensus should be measurably less, however. Admittedly, the current occupant of the White House would never want this alternative.  Nor would his sycophants ever choose it.  They just could not stand up to the scrutiny that such a governing system requires.  It would further diminish the pompous (if not archaic) station of the U.S. Senate with whom the majority party has proved itself incapable of developing a consensus for governing in these recent years.

Two Modest Proposals to Heal that which is Wrong with American Elections

Proposal #1:  Revising the Electoral College process of selecting the POTUS

Two states[15] currently have in place mechanisms to divide their Electoral College electors as a consequence of their citizens’ vote distribution.  That seems like a noble idea and it would particularly become more noble if the other forty-eight states would be given to the appreciation that not all in their respective states prefer only one candidate.  This partitioning provision in the two states was instituted, in part, in order that these states could attract a more significant role in the candidates’ debating to earn the votes they would garner as opposed to being just a fly-over state.  Supposing that congressional district electors represent a personality of some local flavor, it is conceivable that even third party flavors[16] could prevail.  Counting votes in 435 districts need not be any more complex[17] than doing the fifty states. The notion of dispersion of the electioneering process is worthy as it respects citizens as important in diverse regions of the country.  The voter fraud that clearly exists will undoubtedly become more dispersed.  Yet it is possible that local responses to the perceived break-downs in fair election processes could be more successfully combated when it becomes a matter close to the electorate.

Personally, I am dismayed that the two major party candidates only greatly emphasized their campaign to the “swing” states and relegated the acknowledged “red” states and acknowledged “blue” states to minimal campaigning efforts.  It is not that I want to have the same barrage of campaigning as was offered in the several swing states delivered to me as in a now acknowledged predetermined state.  I guess I am strongly discouraged by the matter of the winner-takes-all process in most of the states that is involved with the Electoral College vote for our presidents.  But one may recognize that the major party candidates may in some way prefer to limit their campaigning to just the few states.  It makes it harder to know that the candidates care for, or even respect the voters in all corners of the republic. To me it is another indication that the union is broken.

Proposal #2:  Breaking the juggernaut of the consent decree that thwarts the prosecution of election fraud

Since the force of law contained in the previously indicated consent decree[18] bars the pursuit of the Republican Party from acting to challenge the rampant election fraud, I propose that other political parties step into the fray and do that which the currently constituted Republican Party is prohibited from doing.  Such parties as a Constitution Party or a Libertarian Party, or a Taxpayer’s Party and others may wish to nominate and run a joint slate of presidential candidates.  The current Republicans could conceivably become a coalition to this initiative.  For a coalition to function well it would take the dedication of the sundry parties together to elect a principled candidate in opposition to the current occupant and the philosophy of his party.  All of these coalition forming processes would possibly make the representation of the candidate slate more responsive to the citizens than seems to be true of the current primary and convention processes.  Coalition partners would necessarily have their several political philosophies given attention which now seems lacking.  A particular function of this coalition as proposed should be to have entities which are not now bound to the strictures of the Republican Party that forbid their pursuit of voter fraud issues.  This is to suggest that any one of the coalition parties without the Republican name should be free to prosecute the serious fraud that has erupted by virtue of the one entity that signed the consent decree in 1982.

I offer that a combination of selections of electors to the Electoral College close to their constituencies (Proposal #1) and designation of multiple party options (Proposal #2) could result in splinter third party electors and representatives that could effectively broker the election of the POTUS.  We could then be over the dilemma of having to elect from only two major political parties.  I posture that option as one that could bring down the frustration that constitutes the regard of citizens in these American States toward government and politicians in particular.

A Statement of Significance that should not be Lost after All

Social Critic and author Os Guinness has addressed the question of whether Freedom Can Last Forever[19].  The referenced teachings reiterate that “freedom” is dependent on “virtue” and that “virtue” is dependent on “faith” and “faith” is permitted to blossom in the light of “freedom”.  Should a culture suppress the expression any of the three vertices of this triangular relationship the other points will be squelched.  In a second broadcast segment, Os Guinness appeared to suggest a somewhat optimistic outcome to combat the losses to freedom that is now incumbent upon us[20].  Of course, this would be nice.  But with many in the U.S. Senate now itching to ratify treaties to cede sovereignty to the United Nations my pessimism is inflamed.  Ceding the distinctions of the American exceptionalism that arose in part from that triangle paradigm of freedom to any other sovereignty is likely to be an hegemony that we could not be more tyrannical.

There is no way to avoid that ultimately we are accountable to God.  Guinness describes this as “obedience to the unenforceable”.  If we should live without God’s regard, we should certainly expect His judgment.  I cannot say how that will be meted out or when or how it should come.  Human laws certainly impact freedom with consequences.  God’s laws (i.e., the “unenforceable” but certainly not tyrannical) are precisely the freedom to live at peace with Him and our fellow men.  The remedy is there but if it is not taken the end of our ride on the merry-go-round may be before us.  I know that people of “faith” are called to be faithful and not be dismayed if the truly hard times do/will come.  Ultimately, trusting in the meritorious sacrifice of Christ and His righteousness with our repentance and seeking His forgiveness is our particular hope.


[3] This is where the multiple precincts have 100% tallies for the Democrat candidate and zero for any of their challengers.  See http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/the-big-list-of-vote-fraud-reports/

[4] Look at the systemic high levels of unemployment among minorities and the frighteningly poor achievements of many in academic pursuits.

[5] Here Democrats and union bosses oppose meaningful efforts to overturn the notorious SCOTUS 1973 United States v. Enmons decision http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/396/case.html.  This decision permits and encourages unions to engage in violence in pursuit of their goals.

[6] If this were a truly enlightened age one would suppose that our politicians should have no party with institutions that enslave portions of our American population.  Yet the list does go on with it seeming that Democrat politicians are often engaged in promotions of pornography, prostitution, drug abuse, gambling (particularly lotteries), abortion and sexual perversions.  Of course, they are not alone in these dark sides of life – but often they are the more obvious.

[7] South Sudan separated from historic Sudan after many decades of sectarian warfare promulgated by the Khartoum regime.  Similarly, East Timor reverted to an independent status after having been subsumed by Indonesia in succession to Portuguese colonialism.  Czechoslovakia was partitioned into a Czech Republic and Slovakia.  Yugoslavia devolved into several ethnic states.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is no longer with it having been partitioned among the Russian Republic and other ethnically identified countries.

[8] Great Britain, Canada, many nations of Western Europe and in other regions of the world are each examples of parliamentary arrangement.

[9] One might call the current situation an “aggregation aggravation”.  The alternate philosophies in governance have been at loggerheads all during the current administration.  Nevertheless it is true that the current WH occupant has frequently avoided constitutional roles of separated functions of government of legislative law enactment and administrative law enforcement.  More aggravations,  yes indeed.

[10] A thorny issue is admitted regarding the matter of funded and unfunded entitlements.  If the personal contributions of the citizens residing within the new confederation are retained in the Washington agencies’ accounting then they ought to be factored out of the shared debt allocation.  (I.e., If Washington can’t surrender what has been faithfully prepaid, then they must not consider the new nation responsible for this part of the debt that Washington owes to the beneficiaries.)  However, if the federal agencies (Social Security Administration, Medicare and any others) will continue to pay benefits to the citizens of the new nation then the indebtedness of the recipient nation might be indexed by the amounts that are subsequently awarded to those beneficiaries.  This indexing will be particularly appropriate if the federal deficit is partitioned on the basis of its total aggregate figure at the time of partitioning. These are just preliminary thoughts that should merit further negotiation and adjustments if partitioning is realized.

[12] The initiative earlier mentioned regarding Louisiana was only the first that came to attention.  But then we heard of many petitions coming out of the majority of the states that echo the sentiment in Louisiana.  It won’t do well for me to summarize these developments because any of them are only first exploration of a serious concern that the citizens express.

[13] Depending upon which states secede to the new confederation, the additional areas of the Gulf of Mexico and up the Atlantic coast to perhaps the Tidewater areas might be considered.

[14] The “red state” map that have been published show a continuous sweep from the Gulf Coast to the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho (right up to the Canadian border).

[15] Nebraska and Maine have laws to allocate their few Electoral College votes to alternate presidential candidates based upon measures of proportionality of election results.

[16] I doubt that the stereotypical images of the major party platforms actually play well in numerous regions of the country.  Third party initiatives that are actually counted against the major parties would give constituents a sense of participation that goes asking in the current arrangement.  If there become enough of these third party electors they might well become kingpin deal-makers to affect an eventual outcome as they join in coalition in return for a role in political policy.

[17] It may take more time to call all the districts (especially in Florida) but there would tend to be less theatre in the practice of calling the states on national television.  Perhaps it might actually give way to more substance in these broadcasts.

[19] A short video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpR0hh9Y5KQ and a longer transcript of radio broadcast http://rzim.vo.llnwd.net/o43/MP3/LMPT/LMP20121124.mp3 are referenced here.

Advertisements

Thoughts on Obamacare passage

March 22, 2010

We have come to a time where the evidence displays a constitutional failure in process in the enactment of a healthcare overhaul. The mask of a process of representative governance has come off revealing the face a socialistic hegemony capable of ramming through a program without proper regard for process and certainly not representing the majority of citizens in forcing through the radical agenda of a new healthcare paradigm. Instead of the members of congress continuing to represent their constituents, some of the “apparatchik”-like congress people have abandoned any strongly held regards of their constituents and are ultimately only beholding to the titular figures of their party. It is very disconcerting to see party members cave to “apparatchik” coercion who have previously offered principled objections to both the content and the process of the bill currently being enactment. One can certainly hope that the constituents of each socialist-leaning member of congress will remember these departures of their district politicos from constitutional processes so that they never reward their actions in the coming elections. Why would citizens ever trust these rascals again, anyway?
Consider. Whether these congress persons deserted their constitutional obligation to represent their constituency early or in the last-minute crush of back-room deals shouldn’t matter. They have surrendered principle whenever they sold out to this program that so radically damages the independence of all the nation’s citizens. As a republic we deserve a more sympathetic regard from these members of congress who now have moved to enact strong-handed government dominance on a people who have long cherished personal independence. The new paradigm is extremely punitive in forcing a government fix that is really no business of the federal entity anyway. Tenth Amendment provisions of the U.S. Constitution require that matters not specifically mandated by the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people (in the absence of State provision). We have been denied due process when the national governing (Federal) entity subsumes the role of independent people. It is no doubt true that the United States Congress has through history flagrantly violated constitution principles of this Tenth Amendment.
Why would any constitutional officer of the Federal government violate such a sacred trust? This writer is reminded of the salacious act of certain male persons to proposition a virtuous woman to deflower her purity. If he first offers an outrageously generous price for her to surrender that she even entertains the notion and, subsequently, he begins to offer reduced compensations, she may recoil with protestations. Party leaders are like this lecherous one who in search for their continuing self aggrandizement and dominance have repeatedly offered all manner of largess (often at cost to the citizens) to the junior legislators for them to squander their reputation in order to join ranks in any such aggrandizing scheme. It is true that lobbyists have played this scenario too. When any novice legislator succumbs to these offers it is proved that they are not beholding to any principle that they may have had as they entered the arena of public role. Henceforth, it is no longer a question of whether principle is surrendered but rather at what price they are willing to sell out. Seemingly, it then becomes a way of their continuing behavior. It is analogous to the lecherous lout’s retort to the virtuous female who upon negotiation of lower prices for her surrender exclaims that “I am not that type of a woman.” His reply may be that they had already established that she is “that type of a woman.” Instead the lout informs her “we are now only negotiating the price.” This writer sees an awful abundance of similarity with the machinations of the American Congress and Executive and that nefarious solicitation of sexual favor. In fact, it is too often the proffering of salacious sexual acts that also influences the legislators. With law makers so often compromised in any native principle, why should we ever keep them in office?