Tag Archives: courage

Economics, Governance, Representation, Responsibility

ARE-EEE-PEE, SPEAK FOR ME

Leave a comment
Thank Goodness they are willing to fight for us...
U.S. President Trump Addresses Joint Session of Congress – Washington, U.S. – 28/02/17 – U.S. President Donald Trump addresses Congress. REUTERS/Jim Bourg – RTS10VKB

The United States was born in a time of idealism, and “we” incorporated many ideals into our structure of distributed governance within which power is distributed across centers of responsibility: executive, legislative and judicial.  Ostensibly, the legislative center is the most powerful because it represents the people, not the government.  That’s a critical distinction: the EXECUTIVE and associated departments thereof, is the government; the REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE (House and Senate) represent the people and the states, respectively, TO the government.  In other words, the legislative “branch” is not technically part of the government.  It exists to reign in the government and to make certain that the executive branch is conducting business AS THE PEOPLE WANT it done.

Unfortunately, but ideally, the system depends upon honest executives and honest representatives, and that means widespread sharing of a moral code, never a perfect circumstance, and much less so today than ever in our short history.  The trouble with dishonest representatives is that they quickly figured out that they can vote themselves riches from the federal treasury.  Taking more money required new justifications, mostly comprised of establishing one’s own importance and unique abilities to act as our representative.  Senators started out very differently than representatives, and much differently than they claim to be today.

Senators started out being chosen by the legislators in their respective states, based on the concept of states being somewhat sovereign and deserving of their own representation, specifically separately from citizens, themselves.  That is, states’ interests deserved to be watched out for, essentially to keep the federal government from encroaching on states’ rights and authority, which was a good thing for states to do.  It didn’t take too many decades before legislatures demonstrated their inability to agree on who to send to Washington, particularly in the run up to The (second) Civil War.  By 1900 vacancies in the Senate were common and years long.  Voters were really irked.

Finally, in 1913, the 17th Amendment was passed providing for direct election of senators, as there had always been for representatives.  “More democracy” always sounds good, despite its own spotty record, and there has rarely been a senatorial vacancy since then.  The upshot of direct election is that Senators, with their 6-year terms, are now simply more important “representatives,” who may or may NOT represent the interests of their state, and the Senate is the favored way for the lucky Representative to feather his or her retirement.  It’s a nice, cushy job with few responsibilities.  Senators don’t have to answer for every vote, and have found that they can depend on voters’ forgetfulness, while they campaign for re-election in the sixth year of their terms.  Those unlucky Reps have to campaign every other year, if not more, with voters remembering more of what they promised and have done in the first half of their terms.

Still, one of the bright marks of the failure of our ideal system is the 95% re-election rate for our “elected” representatives.  Along with voting themselves (automatically!) increasing amounts of pay, Reps and Senators take part in the finest health care and pension programs in the country.  And, they have monstrous staff and support agencies who barely enable the two houses of Congress to get their work done!  The work burden is unimaginable.  There’s plenty of vacation time to provide relief from those burdens and to allow for basic mental health, there’s so much stress.

There’s so much stress, in fact, that basic work required by the Constitution and the by the citizens who send these sacrificial men and women to Washington to reign in the government on their behalf, often gets rushed through if done at all… stuff like an annual budget, for example.  Not that it must be annual; the constitution says “…from time to time.”  With all the stress noted, bi-annual budgeting would be perfectly useful IF, and only IF the Congress published a “…regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money… from time to time.”  Other burdens not listed in the Constitution are preventing this requirement from being fulfilled.  What a load… these public servants bear.

Now that the financial underpinnings of representatives and senators are firmly in place, and now that most of those same are likewise firmly in place, we find that members of Congress are mostly representing the GOVERNMENT to US, not us to the government.  If you, the employer of these elected bureaucratic swells, ever attend a meeting where one is speaking – maybe even a “Town Hall,” – you’ll find the discussion one of why things that their employers (you) want done by the “government” can’t or won’t get done.  Then you begin to recognize that our “representatives” are anything but… unless money is going to enrich a favorable someone in the district or state.  Then it’s full steam ahead.

You may also realize that the language of Congress is not freedom, justice or Prudence, it’s power.  Oh the money is nice, and all the trappings and perks, they’re okay.  If a congressperson is able to take sufficient advantage of his or her influence over public monies to become wealthy during his or her decades of sacrifice, who really cares?  But when talking power, there are but two potent factors: re-election and avoiding blame.  For these things it is crucial that voters vote at least twice: once with their checkbooks and at least once at the ballot box.  Indeed, public service has become so service-oriented that if voting at the ballot box is too great a burden for you, why friends of the congressperson will do it for you!  And if there are citizens too infirm, confused or temporarily deceased, why they’ll make sure that voting isn’t burdensome on them, either.  Re-election, step one precedes all things.

Step two, also an unending step, avoiding blame for much of anything, requires careful cultivation of scapegoats, but not just any scapegoat, he, she or they – especially “they” – must be plausibly portrayed as directly responsible (blame-worthy), probably responsible (blame-worthy), responsible for someone who made the mistake (blame-worthy), part of a group that has historically been responsible for a history of mistakes (blame-worthy).  It’s simple, but requires a number of staff to keep abreast of.  So, do you get it?  Re-election and avoiding blame… re-election and avoiding blame.  One need not be a genius to run or win for congress; just understand two principles.  The rest of us are left to deal with honesty, honor, duty, tolerance, charity, courage, wisdom, thrift, family, service to others and Prudence.  There is a point to this disparity of lifestyles.

The principles of purposeful citizenship in the United States are a burden that Americans gladly accept… at least they do if educated and prepared to do so.  But they are easily set aside amidst a land of plenty, including plenty of diversions.  Unless we are constantly reminded or constantly remind ourselves  of our exceptional responsibility in the world, the principles and responsibilities with which we are charged as U. S. citizens can be forgotten, as will our unique place in the firmament of mankind.

In other words, “America,” the ideas that created and sustain her, can be lost in a single generation.  Unfortunately our elected representatives, given their disconnectedness from the exigencies of real life and utter concentration upon the two factors outlined earlier, seem to forget the longer list of principles that must be upheld by citizens who remain the strength of our nation.  First of these to become foggy, slipping into haze and irresolution once re-election is achieved that first time, is honesty.  This no longer means lying about what one believes or does, something that can be ferreted out with evidence and records; now it means being afraid to tell the truth about what one does believe!

Now, we need courage in order to exercise honesty.  Americans have been lied-to for decades… by people who promised to “fight” for us once in office.  What does such a “fight” consist of, one wonders?  Does he or she, candidate to represent US, promise to tell the truth about, say, the budget?  Will he or she promise to read and understand every bill that comes to the floor?

Will he or she promise to fight against  any bill that includes items unrelated to the purported title and subject of the bill?  Will he or she insist on budget, and therefore, policy approval, for every titled agency and program in the Executive branch?  You’ll be able to judge where to give your vote if the answer to any of these questions is some mealy-mouthed explanation of why things can’t be done as we ask.

The Courage to be Honest with voters – what a concept.  Maybe there’s hope for Charity (with their own money, not our great grandchildren’s), Wisdom and Thrift.  Thrift would mean reducing the profligate federal budget, something that must be done as part of Honesty.  Of course, they’d have to become conversant with the budget in the first place, and not simply enough to blame one another for wrong-headed spending.  The federal budget is essentially a Trillion dollars out of balance.  Ask any rep or senator you have a chance to meet if he or she is going to fight to cut spending?  Will he or she fight to prevent raising the “debt ceiling,” so called?  Honesty requires an answer, doesn’t it?

Will your representative and senators represent us with Honor?  No sly side-agreements that do not serve their constituents FIRST?  No personal aggrandizement through any piece of legislation?  Honesty would demand proper response to these questions.  Who, after all, is at the top of our system?  The government?  “Brrraaaap!”  You’re out.

We are at the top.  We are sovereign citizens who have ceded LIMITED power and authority to the federal and state governments, and to municipal governments; all other rights, powers and freedoms belong to each of us as sovereign individuals who possess unalienable rights.  Don’t you forget this.  People in government are there to serve us and protect us and our private properties – including our rights: private properties we are born with.

Our success as a self-governing people can be measured only by how much SMALLER we can render our governments, not by how much larger.  Ask your rep and senatorial candidates if they will fight to make government smaller.  Good luck.

Culture, Governance, Politics 2018, Responsibility

Leaders, Leaders Everywhere – Part One

Leave a comment

America, or shall we say, the United States in particular, has severe leadership problems. We decry them in terms of politics as “partisanship,” but they are much broader than simply that. During our 100 years of industrialization we seemed to have a pretty good pool of leaders – business, industrial, scientific, mercantile, military, religious, philosophical and political. They weren’t deemed to be perfect by everyone, but they were relative giants in society and with their influences they appear to have set standards for others who would be leaders. A handful articulated this role, most simply lived it and comported themselves in what might be described as statesmanlike, in that they took larger views of life and growth, exploration and discovery, and responsibility, in their fields.

We have leaders among us now, of course, but… well, they’re different. And I mean no slighting of women in history, also of course, and the phenomenon of this devolution of leadership seems, unfortunately to have afflicted them, too. How to describe it? Or, how to describe a cause of it?

Let’s consider who a few of today’s “leaders” are. We know them: Trump and some in his administration; certain Democrat leaders including Mrs. Clinton; Congressional leaders, both majority and minority party; numerous “celebrities” from the entertainment industries – indeed, “celebrity” is a critical component of most “leadership,” today; ultra-wealthy business and financial leaders, like Federal Reserve governors and the Chair-man or –woman; the heads of corporations like Google, Facebook, Disney, Microsoft and a hundred more… maybe 500 more… maybe 5,000. But we hear of these business/industrial leaders usually with a descriptive term before their name: billionaire. Maybe, multi-billionaire. It’s a clue to what’s happened to leadership.

Money? Is that all that’s wrong with today’s leaders? They’re disoriented by wealth? Prudence would say, “no, not just money, but it’s a part.”

Leaders often have power. Charles Krauthammer had power as a “thought-leader” for example. Was he a celebrity? Somewhat, thanks to television, but he was a columnist and never described himself as a TV personality. No billionaire, certainly, but he had power for two reasons I can discern: 1) He was a well-read, well-educated observer of things powerful and political, who lucidly expressed his opinion with refreshing honesty, clarity and consistency, and 2) He was honest to himself and to his readers, a refreshing and rare quality from which his power derived. It has been a treat to be alive and literate during his lifetime. Most people under, say, 40, would not list him in their panoply of “leaders,” sadly.

Throughout history the most powerful, threatening, feared person has been in charge. He (occasionally she) could push people around, command their virtual, or real, slavery and surface fealty, and literally take the profits of their work. They could even “lead” them into battles but never were they “leaders” in the sense that they were going in directions that others wanted to go or felt “right” about going. That is to say, the mission driving the King – or kingpin – was not shared by those afraid to not follow him. Mission and Leadership appear to be of a set, virtually inseparable. Does this illuminate any of the apparent differences between leadership during “America’s” biggest century and now?

Intentionally or not, every leader, by default, has some kind of “mission,” possibly only because he or she has articulated what it is that has spurred his or her actions. Lo, and behold! That sudden mission is agreed-to, thanks to our being awash in communications, by a group of people who, in the majority of instances, know only a thin shell of what issues are at stake. But, they are behind “the leader” all the way. One might say that the “size” of the leadership is a function more of the extent of the communications about the issues than it is about the quality of the leader or of the importance of the issues… or of the “principles” that motivate the leader and the followers.

In earlier times, when it could take days for news to reach a significant number of readers – always readers – powerful, or strong-willed people, at least, would start their journey towards a big idea, big goal, big industry or discovery, more nearly alone. His (most often, his) “followers” numbered in the single digits or low tens. It required courage, then. There were no happenstance leaders during the big century. Right or wrong they were real, and honest to their missions. If they and the mission failed, they faced failure… sometimes failure that meant the loss of everything. Lincoln.

Morality has a way of guiding, cajoling, molding and even forcing bad actions to end and bad actors to leave the stage of public influence. In fact, morality is essential to the success of leadership. Even today, when institutions and agencies do their level best to remove themselves from moral judgment, every person who claims to lead this or that movement – even “flash” movement – first lays out some “moral” position around which the latest crowd of followers might rally. Something is wrong and thanks to this “leader’s” vision, that wrong has been exposed and with (your) help, and money, that wrong will be ended and “things” will be set right. Communications unlike anything humans have been exposed to throughout evolution, play a big role in two ways: 1) newsworthy crowds can be assembled in a moment and, 2) the “wrong” that unites them need not be agreed to by even a significant fraction of the nation’s population.
What is “right” and what is “wrong,” anyway? Leadership, historically, has generally been connected to “leaders” who exercise courage in defense of what is “right.” Clear examples were seen during the American Revolution. Not only were the patriots fighting the government they were born under, but fighting with guns and cannons and real bullets. Not all of their fellow colonists were with them, many helped to fight against them. But motivating Washington and every Continental soldier who endured with him and other officers, was the powerful belief that what they were trying to do would yield a greater “good.” They believed they were doing what was right – not just more comfortable or more profitable, but right in terms of freedom, independence and justice.

The “patriots” comprised not even half of the British colonists… not even a quarter. Their mission would have appeared futile in many instances yet they soldiered on. How? They were both blessed and cursed by the paucity of information available to them. Cursed because they did not know the nature or size or deployment of the forces arrayed against them; blessed because they, unlike their modern descendants, were not burdened by too much thinking about their circumstances or by too much planning of how to avoid failure.

That is to say, they didn’t “know enough” to stop believing in the rightness of their mission: bumblebees unaware that they could not fly. The combination allowed their belief and trust in Washington and others to not just maintain but strengthen, until they flew in the face of the greatest possible headwinds. Is that “faith?” Trust in something one cannot see? Leadership is connected to that ability of humans – to believe in something greater than one’s self.

Modern leaders are more likely to be constrained by a flood of information. Indeed, most of our current “leaders” are called so because of financial success. Nearly every move they make is “hedged” in half a dozen ways such that they, personally, cannot lose. Even if their leadership of great businesses “fails,” they have arranged for a “golden parachute” that lets them leave wealthy. Their “leader-ship” carries minimal risk… to themselves. Their “mission” is personal gain and not the gain of a people or of a nation. They may be giants, dollar-wise, but are mis-identified as leaders. More and more, “success” is a measure of mere wealth. Even top political leaders leave office with more money than they entered with, and many become multi-millionaires by selling their celebrity – or notoriety. Money.

Education, Politics 2017, Race

Antifa, Socialism and the Garden of Eden

Leave a comment

Americans, citizens at least, owe it to ourselves… indeed we are OBLIGATED… to obtain the truth about “antifa” and other culture-threatening, community-threatening militaristic “organizations.” Our media and other institutions are failing miserably to challenge their premises or their statements of justification for breaking laws and heads at will. The place to start is the money. It was costly to bus the “Anti-KKK” protestors into Charlottesville. There were 3 or 4 big buses that dropped off the “antifa” group and then left the downtown straight away. Witnesses state that whites with “KKK” Tee-Shirts(!) arrived on those same buses.

I don’t think I know anyone in the KKK, never saw a march of the KKK, never heard a KKK speech. But it’s clear that actual and former members have done their best to hide any association with the truly white-supremacist organization. This begs the question: Who the Hell would want to wear a “KKK” T-shirt? The only advantages to doing so would be 1) to avoid having your own team bonk you during a fight, and 2) to show up clearly in videos and on TV. It is no more likely that one would arrange for such T-shirts to be printed on the morning of a “Unite the Right” rally, than that he or she would obtain the PERMIT for the rally on that same morning.

There was something rotten in Charlottesville. The self-named “antifa” so-called “protesters,” are literally paid to create conflict. Evidence indicates that some of the “right-wing” rally-ers were also part of the paid actors sent to Charlottesville. Why? Who, really, is served by conflicts that rub old, old racial hatreds raw? What is the true intent and what is the inadvertent intent of these cynical displays?

The United States was formed as it was formed. The intense courage of isolated settlers is unimaginable to soft Americans today. The people who chose to come here were who they were. They were raised in a different time and culture and they grew up to believe what they believed. And, here’s a news flash: Not a single one of them came here out of hatred, or with the intention of making “Indians,” who they believed were pagan savages, sick. Not one. And they were all quite religious – Christians of their time, motivated by the need to atone for sins and to sacrifice for others and for the future. That’s why the “invasion” took root and survived. We can go back further and recognize that Christoforo Colombo had no intention of hurting people and was impressively courageous as well. He, and his crew, and his Spanish sponsors, and his home city and the rest of Europe believed what they believed. They had no benefit of the past 520 years of experience.

What profit is there to “hate” them now? Why isn’t Spain hated MORE than the United States? Why isn’t England hated for slavery? The real target of conflict is to decouple the ideas of America from the future. It’s not new.

The first and most effective way to confuse a population that believes it’s “free” and even “sovereign,” is to dis-educate its children. That is, purposely don’t teach them their nation’s history, both “good” and “bad.” Just teach about how bad things were done by “heroes.” Then skip over the courageous and pioneering steps taken in face of extraordinary odds. Concentrate on movie stars, sports figures, and popular opponents of the basic structures and institutions of their culture and heritage.

Fundamental to dis-education in the United States is ignorance of, or ignoring of, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Added ignorance of the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance will also be valuable in separating citizens from ageless philosophies and truths that underlie our exceptional nation. The trouble with all of these ideas so documented is that they tell us that we are free NOT because of being subjects of a governor or government, but because of our CREATOR. That is the greatest threat to secular power structures.

The allegorical story of the Garden of Eden reveals the conflict in the most basic terms. Adam and Eve are created and blessed with everything they need for a bountiful life – the “thesis.” The metaphorical serpent provides an “anti-thesis” regarding the denial to Adam and Eve of the “fruits” of the “Tree of Knowledge.” Whereas God warned that “eating” of that particular tree’s fruits would cause them to “die,” the “Serpent” tells Eve that she and Adam could be as wise as God and that surely, they would not actually die.

Eve and Adam eat of the forbidden fruit, realize forbidden knowledge and God promises them great travails in life and bans them from His bountiful Garden of life. The “synthesis” is in place, slightly toward the secular and away from the original “thesis,” theos – God. They weren’t killed, but for ever after, Life will be the Death of them. This is how Socialism/Secularism spreads its sticky ideas. The thesis is always closest to our Creator’s original premise; the antithesis is always a little farther away from that and toward totally human control of life and history. This brings us to ever-larger segments of populations dependent upon human government, and less and less responsible for the consequences of their actions, or “sins.” Now we are politically agitated over publicly financed abortion as some sort of Constitutional right.

“Antifa” is but the tip of yet another antithetical spear, serving totally secular, financially dictatorial masters who wish to separate mankind from concepts of freedom and individual sovereignty. Not everyone is willing to be so separated, and they are the distinct targets of antithesis. Anything that teaches youth about the thesis, and about lessons learned in defense of the thesis, must be torn down or covered with tarpaulins.