Most conservatives have become accustomed to the normal response to any thinking outside of the standard liberal line.
Opponents are generally classified as "racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, far right fringe elements and lunatics." As with Communists in the former Soviet Union, anyone speaking inconsistently with their doctrine is "psychologically unstable and in need of help."
This will certainly be the case for advocates of "Perfect Society." And for good reason! Perfect Society represents the polar opposite of Marxism. It scorns class warfare. Without class warfare, Marxists have no principle issue, no starting block. "Social Justice" becomes nothing short of "legalized theft!" That's why it's a mathematical certainty that Marxists will greet Perfect Society will vehement vigor!
Let's look at the fine print.
Perfect Society states that all men are equal. But, there is more. Everyone is higher on the socio-economical ladder than the slave. It doesn't matter who you are. It matters not how much money you have. Who your parents were is irrelevant. Your skin color means nothing. So does your country of origin. Your creed makes no difference. And, your religious preference is likewise of no significance.
The single question asks, "are you a free person or are you a slave?"
Wait a minute! We don't have slaves in 2012! Or do we?
The slaves of today don't call any one person "master." But, they are as fettered as any in history. They are those who decided that it is easier and more profitable to live as a ward of the state. They are the "career entitlement recipients." Or, to put it more bluntly, "career welfare recipients." They owe their livelihoods to their master. Their master is the government.
Perfect Society mandates that these career entitlement recipients be taken off the voting rolls. In this manner, all who are not on those rolls are elevated to a rung higher on the ladder. It makes possible for a distinction that separates the working poor from the entitlee. The minimum wage worker, unlike the entitlee shares with the wealthiest the right to express their preference at the voting booths.
Revisionist historians have derided the Antebellum South in many ways. But they never pieced together why it successfully functioned. What made that society work was, in fact, that it was perfect. There was no class warfare. There was only the knowledge that everyone had the ability to rise within society. It generally came down to hard work and ingenuity. But the opportunity always beckoned.
When a Marxist is confronted by such a paradigm, they know that they have met their match. Innately they realize that if this reasoning ever takes hold in America, they will be eventually squeezed out. Theirs in a legacy of failure, of suffering, treachery and deceit. The report card reflects 135 million dead in the previous century. Their forlorn hope is based on one single twisted notion. "Communism failed previously because it was attempted in the wrong country."
Marxists believe that the right country is the United States of America.
Where are these Marxists? Look no further than the White House.
Many have figured it out. There are others who continue to look for resolutions. They truly expect the Obama administration to react not unlike previous Presidencies. They are wrong. Dead wrong!
Don't expect cooperation in the best of American tradition. These people aren't interested in anything except transforming the United States into a Marxist state. Those, who still can't see it should invest time in reading Russian history. It's all there. And make no mistake! It's upon us!
What can we do at this juncture? We have two options.
The first is to disqualify Obama for the presidency. There is evidence that he isn't eligible based on a number of factors. This is a subject matter for a different post. What is important to note is that there have been continuous efforts to bring the question to light. At odds is a self preservationists media uninterested in taking the "bull by the horns."
The second and perhaps the best option is a "peaceful separation" of the states. This creates the opportunity to implement Perfect Society. True, many good Americans have an issue with secession. It is a frightening path. But, it offers boundless opportunities.
Obama's constituency is not stable. In fact, it is highly suspect, in not unpredictable. Mention "civil war" to the average single, 38 year-old-woman with children and the response will be, "work something out. Quit being so stubborn! We don't want a civil war!" They're certain that "hope and change," as in "fundamentally changing America," isn't going to work if a "war" is part of the package! These "vote once every four years" women would be the first to defect.
Gay Americans would quickly withdraw to the shadows!
The Union leaders might stir up a fuss. Until, they found out that they were being abandoned in droves by their membership!
It's possible that some minorities would take exception. But, they might change their tune when they realized that they were agreeing to their own "legalized slaughter." At that point they will finally do what they should have done already: "Bid self serving opportunists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, "adieu."
Perfect Society makes all of these outcomes possible.
In the end, Obama's coalition of "Americans without conviction" would crumble. Perfect Society would provide the long awaited answer to the question of "am I significant and relevant?"
It's important for true American Patriots to take this next crucial step. We must be willing to fight for our freedom. Obama will go as far as we allow him to go. By invoking Perfect Society into the discussion, firmly comparing it to his Marxism, we will be giving the American people a choice. A real choice!
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Jeffersonians Must Present Concrete Distinctions
The question of "third or new" political parties has again surfaced.
There are thousands who predict that the Republican Party will "go the way of the Whig Party." But, if they do, what would replace them? And if the states embark upon a "peaceful separation," what would be the draw to gain support; other than disenchantment with Barack Obama? In short, "how" would secessionists convince those unhappy with present day America that theirs was the better option?
Entering the "Jeffersonians."
In a previous post some specifics were unveiled. The primary groups composing the new party were identified. "Constitutionalist Republicans, John F. Kennedy Democrats and Libertarians" account for a large part of the country. Most feel that they are the "odd men out.". However, in hammering our a platform, there must be more substance. Simply being disgruntled Republicans or Democrats isn't enough. What would make the Jeffersonians a viable alternative?
Two proposed additions to the Constitution, "Perfect Society and the "E" Amendment" would chart a long range course. There include commonalities that all three factions can wrap their arms around! But what about now? How are the immediate questions addressed?
Can we find common ground on issues such as Tax Reform, Health Care, Clean Air and Water, Banking, Defense, Immigration, Globalism versus Protectionism, Energy, Foreign Affairs, Faith versus Secularism, Gay Rights and the Second Amendment? And, if so, what are they?
Let's return to our constituency. Evaluate the three groups. Then, think about the spiritual founder, Thomas Jefferson. Where would he stand on these issues?
The next step is deciding "where the most votes are" regarding every one of these questions!
Let's start with perhaps most downtrodden segment of our population in recent times: "Single heterosexual fathers." Has anyone noticed the raw deals that "Dads" ofter get in a custody cases? Most people are aware of it. Yet, there looms the prevailing paradigm: "Is it right to take children away from the mother?" Unfortunately equal rights is a double edged sword!
The Civil Right Act of 1968 placed women on the protected list. And, for good reason! Flagrant exhibitions of discrimination based on gender were rampant in America. General logic surmised "women shouldn't be hired for management positions because "they are too emotional." Rationalization typically reflected the much used chauvinist excuse of , "what if she gets pregnant?The business can't go on hold, waiting for her to punch out a kid!"
Since that verdict, things have changed. Women have made huge advancements in the work place. However, a pre-1968 axiom has changed little. Women are still considered to be the most essential caretakers of children.
Some sympathetic men maintained their conclusion that, "you couldn't really take small children away from their mother, even if she wasn't that great of a parent and the father was a decidedly better one." Yet, growing numbers of single fathers are asking, "why?" As in, "why is it a general assumption that the mother is entitled to automatic custodial parent privileges? Do not equal rights apply?"
Most Americans today, Republican and Democrat believe that women should have equal access to an education, profession, opportunities for advancement in management and income. However, shouldn't single Dads enter a court room on a "level playing field" when facing a custody battle?
Adding "single heterosexual fathers" to the protected list specified by the Civil Rights Act of 1968. would be a defining position, differentiating Jeffersonians from Republicans and Democrats. True, the more liberal Democrats who advocate Gay Marriage would be offended. And, it's probable that the most staunchly conservative Republicans would oppose the addition on "philosophical grounds."
Such a measure would be both non-partisan and non racial. Uniting a core segment of the population around a common concern is the first step toward solidifying a constituency. Even men who have never married or have had children would be drawn to the Jeffersonians, on this one issue!
The marriage rate has dropped alarmingly since 1980. Men are simply not wanting to marry. They see little incentive. If they have children, their wife can take them at a whim along with any estate that they might have accumulated. Women are perceived to be more "angry" these days. In some instances they complain that they are "tired or bored" with their husbands and consequently divorce them on those grounds! The proposed alteration of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 could impact this trend!
Republicans hold the advantage with men nationwide. Democrats hold the advantage with women, especially younger women and gays. It is doubtful that Jeffersonians would lose many Republican voter if single, heterosexual fathers were added to the protected list. However, it is definite that they would pick up minorities, especially black males! And this must be an objective for the Jeffersonians!
There are other distinctions to be reviewed in future posts.
The key consideration is gently coaxing good people away from the poisons of Obama's Marxism. It won't happen through the Republican party! And it won't come about merely from a promise of tax cuts! There must be substance, meaning and a vision of something better and more inclusive.
There are thousands who predict that the Republican Party will "go the way of the Whig Party." But, if they do, what would replace them? And if the states embark upon a "peaceful separation," what would be the draw to gain support; other than disenchantment with Barack Obama? In short, "how" would secessionists convince those unhappy with present day America that theirs was the better option?
Entering the "Jeffersonians."
In a previous post some specifics were unveiled. The primary groups composing the new party were identified. "Constitutionalist Republicans, John F. Kennedy Democrats and Libertarians" account for a large part of the country. Most feel that they are the "odd men out.". However, in hammering our a platform, there must be more substance. Simply being disgruntled Republicans or Democrats isn't enough. What would make the Jeffersonians a viable alternative?
Two proposed additions to the Constitution, "Perfect Society and the "E" Amendment" would chart a long range course. There include commonalities that all three factions can wrap their arms around! But what about now? How are the immediate questions addressed?
Can we find common ground on issues such as Tax Reform, Health Care, Clean Air and Water, Banking, Defense, Immigration, Globalism versus Protectionism, Energy, Foreign Affairs, Faith versus Secularism, Gay Rights and the Second Amendment? And, if so, what are they?
Let's return to our constituency. Evaluate the three groups. Then, think about the spiritual founder, Thomas Jefferson. Where would he stand on these issues?
The next step is deciding "where the most votes are" regarding every one of these questions!
Let's start with perhaps most downtrodden segment of our population in recent times: "Single heterosexual fathers." Has anyone noticed the raw deals that "Dads" ofter get in a custody cases? Most people are aware of it. Yet, there looms the prevailing paradigm: "Is it right to take children away from the mother?" Unfortunately equal rights is a double edged sword!
The Civil Right Act of 1968 placed women on the protected list. And, for good reason! Flagrant exhibitions of discrimination based on gender were rampant in America. General logic surmised "women shouldn't be hired for management positions because "they are too emotional." Rationalization typically reflected the much used chauvinist excuse of , "what if she gets pregnant?The business can't go on hold, waiting for her to punch out a kid!"
Since that verdict, things have changed. Women have made huge advancements in the work place. However, a pre-1968 axiom has changed little. Women are still considered to be the most essential caretakers of children.
Some sympathetic men maintained their conclusion that, "you couldn't really take small children away from their mother, even if she wasn't that great of a parent and the father was a decidedly better one." Yet, growing numbers of single fathers are asking, "why?" As in, "why is it a general assumption that the mother is entitled to automatic custodial parent privileges? Do not equal rights apply?"
Most Americans today, Republican and Democrat believe that women should have equal access to an education, profession, opportunities for advancement in management and income. However, shouldn't single Dads enter a court room on a "level playing field" when facing a custody battle?
Adding "single heterosexual fathers" to the protected list specified by the Civil Rights Act of 1968. would be a defining position, differentiating Jeffersonians from Republicans and Democrats. True, the more liberal Democrats who advocate Gay Marriage would be offended. And, it's probable that the most staunchly conservative Republicans would oppose the addition on "philosophical grounds."
Such a measure would be both non-partisan and non racial. Uniting a core segment of the population around a common concern is the first step toward solidifying a constituency. Even men who have never married or have had children would be drawn to the Jeffersonians, on this one issue!
The marriage rate has dropped alarmingly since 1980. Men are simply not wanting to marry. They see little incentive. If they have children, their wife can take them at a whim along with any estate that they might have accumulated. Women are perceived to be more "angry" these days. In some instances they complain that they are "tired or bored" with their husbands and consequently divorce them on those grounds! The proposed alteration of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 could impact this trend!
Republicans hold the advantage with men nationwide. Democrats hold the advantage with women, especially younger women and gays. It is doubtful that Jeffersonians would lose many Republican voter if single, heterosexual fathers were added to the protected list. However, it is definite that they would pick up minorities, especially black males! And this must be an objective for the Jeffersonians!
There are other distinctions to be reviewed in future posts.
The key consideration is gently coaxing good people away from the poisons of Obama's Marxism. It won't happen through the Republican party! And it won't come about merely from a promise of tax cuts! There must be substance, meaning and a vision of something better and more inclusive.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Jeffersonian Standard at Odds with Present Day America
Tea Party Republicans continue to flounder at "why does the Republican Establishment have 2008 and 2010 memory lapses? And, "why do they treat us like red headed stepchildren?"
Maybe it's because they never reached out to the Tea Party. If memory serves me correctly, the Tea Party reached out to the Republican Party. Perhaps it was only place to go. As time progresses, we can see the vast differences between what we are and where they want to go. So what's next? A third party?
Yes. But, before we go there, we must remedy a much bigger problem. It is called "what used to be the United States of America."
For those who continue to bury their head in the sand, hoping that tomorrow will bring a new congress, court, president, bureaucracy and media, here's a shot of ice water! It is gone! To return to where we were, even in 1988, will take 50 years. By 2016 that 50 years will be 100 years. If not 150 years. If at all!
We need to create a new political party. But first, we must create a new United States of America. Not the current United American States, which represents Washington D.C.'s ideal. But a new country that is based on individual freedoms, personal responsibility and a government that serves the people, not visa versa!
I call it, The Jeffersonian Party. It is based on spiritual founder, Thomas Jefferson's famous proclamation, "When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."
Nice slogan! Who will argue with it? Let's puts some "meat" on the bones!
We'll start with a quick review of the 10th amendment. Wow! A lot of stuff that we're handling from
Washington should actually be done at state level! Let's go down the list! Education, Energy, Environmental Protection, Commerce, Justice and more. Could the states handle it? Under the constitution, they have no choice!
Let us move to personal responsibility. Shouldn't everyone shoulder their share? Wasn't that what made "Perfect Society" work? Because everyone would have the right, if not the obligation, to contribute, they also earn their chance to express their preference at the voting polls. Those not electing to shoulder their share of the burden, wouldn't!
Why is it important for everyone to be literate? Why do we need to have one language and not a number of languages? Does it really matter? Couldn't we place language preferences on the voting ballots and decide if we wanted more than one language? Or, which language that we did want, for that matter? It's about "turning sheeple into people." It goes back to individual development and betterment.
Deep in the "nooks and crannies" of 1770's politics reveal a dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. It centered on banking. Jefferson wanted the government, as in congress to oversee the money supply. Hamilton thought best for that role to be reserved for outside entities. As in English, French and European entities.
This is an over simplification. But it does suggest a split which found John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Paine on one side, while Hamilton,George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams took the opposite position. Ironically, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Paine were not Freemason's. The others were.
So what does this have to do with a "new" United States of America? It could have alot to do with it, if states elect to separate!
A large part of the worlds debt is held by European and Northeast United States banking interests. Included are mortgage debt and student loan debt. There is always a danger of defaults with any major change in governments. Especially when many of the debtors feel that they were treated unfairly.
This is compounded by a central government that is not trusted due to it's lack of fiscal discipline. Complicating matters further is the worry that government is too big and getting bigger. Most see government as an overbearing force in everyday life. Now, it plans to shove Obamacare down the throats of a reluctant America! New Obama inspired regulations mount with each passing day. There is a feeling that American nationalism has been given a backseat to globalism.
It gets worse! There is a growing belief that Barack Obama may not have won the election. His eligibility to be president continues to be questioned. And, evidence is mounting that he may be a "real live, in the flesh, Marxist!" Imagine that! A Communist, who cheated his way into the White House, who was never eligible to begin with!
Who would want to stay with such a person, let alone have them as their president? In a previous post we answered that specifically: "Career Welfare Recipients. "Sheeple." Unions. Socialist Ideologues. Wily Opportunists."
What about salt-of-the-earth Americans from Pennsylvania and Tennessee? We're not confining this discussion to Tea Party members. If Obama was found to be ineligible or if Obama's DNA confirmed the he was the son of someone other than the father originally claimed, what would they say?
This is what members of the Tea party must ask themselves. Would they listen to the "mushy milk toasters," stick their heads in the sand, ostrich style, hoping things work themselves out? Would they listen to career politicians, certain to assure them that there is no other way?
It is likely that we will never know who this president truly is. But it is a certainty that he will, as he promised, fundamentally change America. The question is, "are we going to sit around like a cattle going to slaughter awaiting the inevitable?
We need leaders. We need men and women who reflect the principles of Thomas Jefferson. We need visionaries. We need patriots holding the highest levels of courage and conviction. Are they out there?
Maybe it's because they never reached out to the Tea Party. If memory serves me correctly, the Tea Party reached out to the Republican Party. Perhaps it was only place to go. As time progresses, we can see the vast differences between what we are and where they want to go. So what's next? A third party?
Yes. But, before we go there, we must remedy a much bigger problem. It is called "what used to be the United States of America."
For those who continue to bury their head in the sand, hoping that tomorrow will bring a new congress, court, president, bureaucracy and media, here's a shot of ice water! It is gone! To return to where we were, even in 1988, will take 50 years. By 2016 that 50 years will be 100 years. If not 150 years. If at all!
We need to create a new political party. But first, we must create a new United States of America. Not the current United American States, which represents Washington D.C.'s ideal. But a new country that is based on individual freedoms, personal responsibility and a government that serves the people, not visa versa!
I call it, The Jeffersonian Party. It is based on spiritual founder, Thomas Jefferson's famous proclamation, "When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."
Nice slogan! Who will argue with it? Let's puts some "meat" on the bones!
We'll start with a quick review of the 10th amendment. Wow! A lot of stuff that we're handling from
Washington should actually be done at state level! Let's go down the list! Education, Energy, Environmental Protection, Commerce, Justice and more. Could the states handle it? Under the constitution, they have no choice!
Let us move to personal responsibility. Shouldn't everyone shoulder their share? Wasn't that what made "Perfect Society" work? Because everyone would have the right, if not the obligation, to contribute, they also earn their chance to express their preference at the voting polls. Those not electing to shoulder their share of the burden, wouldn't!
Why is it important for everyone to be literate? Why do we need to have one language and not a number of languages? Does it really matter? Couldn't we place language preferences on the voting ballots and decide if we wanted more than one language? Or, which language that we did want, for that matter? It's about "turning sheeple into people." It goes back to individual development and betterment.
Deep in the "nooks and crannies" of 1770's politics reveal a dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. It centered on banking. Jefferson wanted the government, as in congress to oversee the money supply. Hamilton thought best for that role to be reserved for outside entities. As in English, French and European entities.
This is an over simplification. But it does suggest a split which found John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Paine on one side, while Hamilton,George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams took the opposite position. Ironically, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Paine were not Freemason's. The others were.
So what does this have to do with a "new" United States of America? It could have alot to do with it, if states elect to separate!
A large part of the worlds debt is held by European and Northeast United States banking interests. Included are mortgage debt and student loan debt. There is always a danger of defaults with any major change in governments. Especially when many of the debtors feel that they were treated unfairly.
This is compounded by a central government that is not trusted due to it's lack of fiscal discipline. Complicating matters further is the worry that government is too big and getting bigger. Most see government as an overbearing force in everyday life. Now, it plans to shove Obamacare down the throats of a reluctant America! New Obama inspired regulations mount with each passing day. There is a feeling that American nationalism has been given a backseat to globalism.
It gets worse! There is a growing belief that Barack Obama may not have won the election. His eligibility to be president continues to be questioned. And, evidence is mounting that he may be a "real live, in the flesh, Marxist!" Imagine that! A Communist, who cheated his way into the White House, who was never eligible to begin with!
Who would want to stay with such a person, let alone have them as their president? In a previous post we answered that specifically: "Career Welfare Recipients. "Sheeple." Unions. Socialist Ideologues. Wily Opportunists."
What about salt-of-the-earth Americans from Pennsylvania and Tennessee? We're not confining this discussion to Tea Party members. If Obama was found to be ineligible or if Obama's DNA confirmed the he was the son of someone other than the father originally claimed, what would they say?
This is what members of the Tea party must ask themselves. Would they listen to the "mushy milk toasters," stick their heads in the sand, ostrich style, hoping things work themselves out? Would they listen to career politicians, certain to assure them that there is no other way?
It is likely that we will never know who this president truly is. But it is a certainty that he will, as he promised, fundamentally change America. The question is, "are we going to sit around like a cattle going to slaughter awaiting the inevitable?
We need leaders. We need men and women who reflect the principles of Thomas Jefferson. We need visionaries. We need patriots holding the highest levels of courage and conviction. Are they out there?
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Charting a New Course Through Peaceful Separation
Disenchantment with the Obama Administration is universal with 50% of the U.S. population. The divide has never been greater and is worsening. Yet, many have gone no further than basic enmity for the President. For a movement to have legs, a "better way" must be outlined, accompanied by a vision that cultivates hope.
The Republican Establishment will not contribute to any secessionist aims. They are part of the problem. On paper, they represent the opposition to Obama's machine. Behind closed doors, it's actually reminiscent of Soviet style party democracy. Some bold words, some reassuring rhetoric and finally, a "consensus."
The alternative course is quite different. In a previous post, three distinctions were introduced. They began with a "national right-to-work law" that would restrict collective bargaining rights for public sector employees. They included, "Perfect Society," the destroyer of class, race and ethnic warfare. And thirdly, a proposed constitutional amendment, which would both make English the official language in America laying out new parameters for immigration.
When viewing these three proposals in unison, it is easy to see how they would offer a clear alternative to the present Obama course. Let's start with "Perfect Society."
The "Perfect Society" theory has it's origin in the antebellum south. It's premise is "no matter how rich or poor that you are, who your parents were, what country that your ancestors immigrated from, what your skin color might be, what religious preference you held," you were one rung higher than the slave. Revisionist historians wrongly equated "slave" to "race." In reality, this isn't accurate.
Modern application of "Perfect Society" would amount to disenfranchising all who (a) did not receive social security, (b) did not receive disability, (c) did not receive a pension, (d) had not received any form of entitlement over the previous two years, (e) did not own two acres of land and (f) could not show proof of paid employment at some time during the past three years. Wow, who did we miss! That sounds like nobody is excluded!
Actually, there is one group that is excluded. They are the "career entitlees." In short, "career welfare recipients." These Americans have made a career out of beating the system. They learned that the "free way" is better than the "low pay way!" From an economic point of view, it is. When you are receiving generous housing subsidies, A.F.D.C., food stamps, and medical cards, you are likely better off than working for $10 per hour. When you add valuable extras such as Pell grants, free lunches in the public schools and cell phones, the disparity broadens!
The aim of "Perfect Society" is not to pull the rug from under these Americans! It would simply take them off the voter rolls. By doing so, you are telling the guy who has the $10 per hour job, struggling to pay his bills that he does have something that the guy taking the easy route doesn't have: "a voice!"
Obviously the Obama administration would vehemently oppose such an action. In effect, it's going straight for the jugular of one of their key constituencies. "Perfect Society" states that "everyone is relevant and significant." But, those who are allowing the rest of us to carry them, will not have a voice in collective decision making. Therefore, like the slave, they are on the "bottom rung" of society.
The goal of the "E" Amendment, outlined in "E" is for English, is to "turn "sheeple" into people."
Making English the official language in the United States of America is the goal of several foundations. But none of these foundations have truly grasped the essence of what they are attempting to achieve! By making English the official language, we are binding the nation together. Unfortunately, there are those who oppose it for political reasons. Even though 87% of the nation favors it, they have effectively blocked implementation on a national level.
A new republic would have no such barriers! Instead of striving to keep Americans functionally illiterate in English, it would "mandate passage of a fourth grade English proficiency exam as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card." The objective: Assimilation. Only through assimilation would these Americans be able to have a true shot at the "American Dream!" Suffrage should provide the necessary motivation!
"Sheeple,"(The Russian word for "Sheeple" is "Pleb yea ih") are easier to control and manipulate. They are much easier to influence. They are more susceptible to the politics of class warfare. When there is a direct focus on their individual improvement, they become more productive as citizens. It begins with education. However, better educated people tend to be much more difficult to control and manipulate.
The new republic would focus on individual development. The mandate would challenge every member of society to live up to their potential. Obviously, the Obama vision doesn't accommodate individual achievement. It promotes division through the mythical desire for "diversity."
A new republic would base immigration on "getting the best possible immigrants." While the alternative path promotes "quantity," it would focus on "quality." True, this closely mirrors the Republican plan. But, in truly grasping the "E" plan, there is much more.
Should the new republic adopt the "E" immigration plan, several new ideas will come into focus. Starting with a "re visitation" of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment stipulated that any person born in America was granted citizenship. There is evidence that it was referring to the recently emancipated slaves. After all, it did not include the native Americans when conceived! Since then, many children have been born to parents illegally in the country. Under the "E" plan, "at least one parent would be required to prove that they held no less than permanent resident alien status."
"E" would create a "priority points" system. In addition to education and English proficiency, "age"(applicants under 30 would receive preference points) and country of origin(immigrants coming from N.A.T.O. countries would receive preference points) would be included in the mix. Applicants from terrorist countries would not be accepted in the new Republic.
Under the "E" proposal, any man, woman or child currently in the country illegally would be given a path to citizenship upon passage of a 10th grade English proficiency exam. However, unlike the D.R.E.A.M. act, they would not have access to entitlements. A form of service would be required for all. The path would be probationary in nature. But it would insure that those already assimilated would be allowed to remain.
There would be an initiative to curtail identity theft. It would start by emphasizing the importance of individual privacy. A quick way to reach this goal is to place "individual privacy ahead of profit." By prohibiting "off shore outsourcing of any job requiring all or part of an Americans' social security number," a major step would be taken!
Fortune 500 companies would downplay the value of such a standard! They would argue that "most of these jobs would pay less than $10 per hour." This is true. However, what is important is knowing the actual recipients of these jobs!
Who would they be? Mostly 62-66 year-olds, awaiting qualification for Medicare. Many would have already opted for early Social Security. An $18,000 per year, banking job with health insurance would not compromise their entitlement! And, business would gain access to an experienced, consistent and punctual work force!
Right-to-work is an issue that should be determined at the state level, in accordance to the 10th amendment. However, forcing workers to involuntarily contribute to political candidates not of their choosing is simply wrong! Under a proposed "national right-to-work" law, the practice would be prohibited.
The public sector now enjoys significantly better pay and benefits than the private sector. They also wield an inordinate amount of power! In Obama's America, they are allowed, even encouraged to hold the people they are supposed to be serving, hostage! The new Republic would take a lesson from Wisconsin's historical stand and restrict public sector collective bargaining rights!
These would be the three principle distinctions between the America that we see that is currently unraveling and a new Republic. Questions such as abortion, prayer in the public schools.,gay rights, marijuana legalization, and health care would be determined by the individual states.
The question of "money" and how it would be raised to fund the new Republic will be addressed in a future post. Important now, is determining what kind of alternative those departing states would aspire. These three standards would change the landscape dramatically.
Our founding father established a Republic. Somehow, along the way, we have forgotten this fact! You hear "Democracy" frequently on the tongues of both Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps they need to consult history!
These three measures put forth would insure that a new Republic would always be just that: "A Republic." The time for watered down, meaningless compromises is past. The day of career politicians reaching a consensus is gone. Americans need to individually ask themselves "which vision" best illustrates their America. When they have their answer, they can concentrate on reaching it.
Whatever that vision may be, it will begin at the state level.
The Republican Establishment will not contribute to any secessionist aims. They are part of the problem. On paper, they represent the opposition to Obama's machine. Behind closed doors, it's actually reminiscent of Soviet style party democracy. Some bold words, some reassuring rhetoric and finally, a "consensus."
The alternative course is quite different. In a previous post, three distinctions were introduced. They began with a "national right-to-work law" that would restrict collective bargaining rights for public sector employees. They included, "Perfect Society," the destroyer of class, race and ethnic warfare. And thirdly, a proposed constitutional amendment, which would both make English the official language in America laying out new parameters for immigration.
When viewing these three proposals in unison, it is easy to see how they would offer a clear alternative to the present Obama course. Let's start with "Perfect Society."
The "Perfect Society" theory has it's origin in the antebellum south. It's premise is "no matter how rich or poor that you are, who your parents were, what country that your ancestors immigrated from, what your skin color might be, what religious preference you held," you were one rung higher than the slave. Revisionist historians wrongly equated "slave" to "race." In reality, this isn't accurate.
Modern application of "Perfect Society" would amount to disenfranchising all who (a) did not receive social security, (b) did not receive disability, (c) did not receive a pension, (d) had not received any form of entitlement over the previous two years, (e) did not own two acres of land and (f) could not show proof of paid employment at some time during the past three years. Wow, who did we miss! That sounds like nobody is excluded!
Actually, there is one group that is excluded. They are the "career entitlees." In short, "career welfare recipients." These Americans have made a career out of beating the system. They learned that the "free way" is better than the "low pay way!" From an economic point of view, it is. When you are receiving generous housing subsidies, A.F.D.C., food stamps, and medical cards, you are likely better off than working for $10 per hour. When you add valuable extras such as Pell grants, free lunches in the public schools and cell phones, the disparity broadens!
The aim of "Perfect Society" is not to pull the rug from under these Americans! It would simply take them off the voter rolls. By doing so, you are telling the guy who has the $10 per hour job, struggling to pay his bills that he does have something that the guy taking the easy route doesn't have: "a voice!"
Obviously the Obama administration would vehemently oppose such an action. In effect, it's going straight for the jugular of one of their key constituencies. "Perfect Society" states that "everyone is relevant and significant." But, those who are allowing the rest of us to carry them, will not have a voice in collective decision making. Therefore, like the slave, they are on the "bottom rung" of society.
The goal of the "E" Amendment, outlined in "E" is for English, is to "turn "sheeple" into people."
Making English the official language in the United States of America is the goal of several foundations. But none of these foundations have truly grasped the essence of what they are attempting to achieve! By making English the official language, we are binding the nation together. Unfortunately, there are those who oppose it for political reasons. Even though 87% of the nation favors it, they have effectively blocked implementation on a national level.
A new republic would have no such barriers! Instead of striving to keep Americans functionally illiterate in English, it would "mandate passage of a fourth grade English proficiency exam as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card." The objective: Assimilation. Only through assimilation would these Americans be able to have a true shot at the "American Dream!" Suffrage should provide the necessary motivation!
"Sheeple,"(The Russian word for "Sheeple" is "Pleb yea ih") are easier to control and manipulate. They are much easier to influence. They are more susceptible to the politics of class warfare. When there is a direct focus on their individual improvement, they become more productive as citizens. It begins with education. However, better educated people tend to be much more difficult to control and manipulate.
The new republic would focus on individual development. The mandate would challenge every member of society to live up to their potential. Obviously, the Obama vision doesn't accommodate individual achievement. It promotes division through the mythical desire for "diversity."
A new republic would base immigration on "getting the best possible immigrants." While the alternative path promotes "quantity," it would focus on "quality." True, this closely mirrors the Republican plan. But, in truly grasping the "E" plan, there is much more.
Should the new republic adopt the "E" immigration plan, several new ideas will come into focus. Starting with a "re visitation" of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment stipulated that any person born in America was granted citizenship. There is evidence that it was referring to the recently emancipated slaves. After all, it did not include the native Americans when conceived! Since then, many children have been born to parents illegally in the country. Under the "E" plan, "at least one parent would be required to prove that they held no less than permanent resident alien status."
"E" would create a "priority points" system. In addition to education and English proficiency, "age"(applicants under 30 would receive preference points) and country of origin(immigrants coming from N.A.T.O. countries would receive preference points) would be included in the mix. Applicants from terrorist countries would not be accepted in the new Republic.
Under the "E" proposal, any man, woman or child currently in the country illegally would be given a path to citizenship upon passage of a 10th grade English proficiency exam. However, unlike the D.R.E.A.M. act, they would not have access to entitlements. A form of service would be required for all. The path would be probationary in nature. But it would insure that those already assimilated would be allowed to remain.
There would be an initiative to curtail identity theft. It would start by emphasizing the importance of individual privacy. A quick way to reach this goal is to place "individual privacy ahead of profit." By prohibiting "off shore outsourcing of any job requiring all or part of an Americans' social security number," a major step would be taken!
Fortune 500 companies would downplay the value of such a standard! They would argue that "most of these jobs would pay less than $10 per hour." This is true. However, what is important is knowing the actual recipients of these jobs!
Who would they be? Mostly 62-66 year-olds, awaiting qualification for Medicare. Many would have already opted for early Social Security. An $18,000 per year, banking job with health insurance would not compromise their entitlement! And, business would gain access to an experienced, consistent and punctual work force!
Right-to-work is an issue that should be determined at the state level, in accordance to the 10th amendment. However, forcing workers to involuntarily contribute to political candidates not of their choosing is simply wrong! Under a proposed "national right-to-work" law, the practice would be prohibited.
The public sector now enjoys significantly better pay and benefits than the private sector. They also wield an inordinate amount of power! In Obama's America, they are allowed, even encouraged to hold the people they are supposed to be serving, hostage! The new Republic would take a lesson from Wisconsin's historical stand and restrict public sector collective bargaining rights!
These would be the three principle distinctions between the America that we see that is currently unraveling and a new Republic. Questions such as abortion, prayer in the public schools.,gay rights, marijuana legalization, and health care would be determined by the individual states.
The question of "money" and how it would be raised to fund the new Republic will be addressed in a future post. Important now, is determining what kind of alternative those departing states would aspire. These three standards would change the landscape dramatically.
Our founding father established a Republic. Somehow, along the way, we have forgotten this fact! You hear "Democracy" frequently on the tongues of both Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps they need to consult history!
These three measures put forth would insure that a new Republic would always be just that: "A Republic." The time for watered down, meaningless compromises is past. The day of career politicians reaching a consensus is gone. Americans need to individually ask themselves "which vision" best illustrates their America. When they have their answer, they can concentrate on reaching it.
Whatever that vision may be, it will begin at the state level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)