Practicality, Discipline Could Net Ten Senate Seats for GOP

Oh, the promises of 2014!

Obamacare's rough start are cause for glee in Republican circles. A law that was passed without one Republican vote! Broken Presidential promises! Massive misrepresentation! Could it not get any better?

Without question, the GOP could retake the Senate this November. Democrat Senators in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina are in deep trouble. Open seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia will likely result in pickups.

It could get even better! Scott Brown is hinting that he might return to his home state and challenge Jeanne Shaheen for the New Hampshire Senate seat. Shaheen, a solid supporter of Obamacare, is taking some heat from constituents over "sticker shock." Brown is not only a "ninth generation Granite Stater," he is a true moderate. Shaheen, a native Missourian, is considered a "rubber stamp" for the Obama agenda.

Gary Peters, the choice of the Democrat Establishment is expected to be the nominee to fill retiring Carl Levin's seat in Michigan. As of now, Grand Rapid's own, Terri Lynn Land is the GOP front runner.Polls suggest that the race will be a photo finish. The stars would point to a close Democrat win. However, if Congressman, Mike Rogers decides to run, all bets are off!

In Iowa Tom Harkin is retiring. State Senator, Joni Ernst is silently backed by Governor, Terry Branstead and may be the most electable. But the Republican field is crowded and if no candidate receives at least 35% of the primary votes,the nominee will be chosen by a state convention. Democrats have apparently settled on Congressman, Bruce Braley. This could be a very close race! If Obamacare continues to sputter and Republicans nominate a "non-controversial" candidate such as Ernst, another pickup is possible.

There are other races to not dismiss, such as Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado. But these ten seats would totally change the dynamics in the U.S. Senate. Of course, Republicans would be required to hold all of their current 45 seats. That's doable. But there can't be any more Angles, Akins and Mourdocks!

It comes down to discipline. Why waste resources to recall Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell? Do not Reublicans have bigger "problems" than Lindsey Graham? The Tea Party may have saved the Republicans after the disaster of 2008. Their next hurdle is learning how to understand the meaning of "a lessor of two evils."

Democrats are disciplined. And, they are unified. They know that their best chance of holding the Michigan and Iowa seats lies in uncontested primaries.

Odds are Scott Brown would trounce Jeanne Shaheen in a general election. But he would still need to gain the nomination of his party.

So, the opportunity is there! The prizes include, but are not limited to, "repeal of Obamacare!" It's probable that a fifty-five seat majority, would be successful in gaining enough "across the aisle" votes to override a Presidential veto.

And the nightmare would be no more!

And there's more!

Dodd-Frank would likely be next on the repeal docket. More court appointments, Mr. President? Forget it! And then it would be time to begin impeachment proceedings! Starting with Mr. Holder and Ms. Rice!

Like the 2012 Presidential race, this is the Republican's to lose! They have the best issue of a generation. The key will be learning from previous Senate and Presidential selection mistakes. If they can do this, they will get everything they want.

And more!

Solving "Dads' Dilemma" Could Capture the Elusive 5%

In our previous post on EFA, we discussed a fifteen-plank platform that would define the goals of the majority of Americans. At the root of the argument is the acknowledgment that "some things were better left to the states." However, there is one national adjustment that merits dialog.

A sad, typically "brushed under the rug," American reality is how Dads are are often given the shaft in a custody decision. While the landscape may have slightly improved over the past thirty years, it's not where it needs to be.

As one Ohio man put it, "women want equal rights; until they go into a courtroom in a custody fight. Then they want to talk about the ages of the children and the nurturing attibutes of the mother."

This would be consistent with suggesting that "women can't be hired for management positions because they might become pregnant, requiring a leave of absence." There is no doubt that any company who published such a standard would be "knee deep" in ligitation.

A close friend who had endured the horrors of a divorce and custody fight saw a double standard that was deeply ingrained in the American psyche. As he phraised, "I have a brilliant little girl and I have a equally brilliant little boy. I want my daughter to have the same prospects as my son."

This translated to education, a profession, management preferences and income, "But," as he reminded, "if my son ever goes into a court room in a custody fight, it's only fair that he be playing on a level field."

In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! Alas, equal rights are truly a double edged sword.

These frustrated fathers have watched silently as our two political parties have shunned all efforts to bring about any relief. For different reasons, of course!

Democrats unknowingly are following the formula outlined in the "The Naked Communist," a book that appeared in 1958, which sought to replace the father with government. For more information about this work, please visit www.agendadocumentary.com

Republicans remained mysteriously silent. Some were simply too traditional to imagine that a father might actually be the better parent. No doubt, the party leadership reminded everyone that the GOP was already in the hole with female voters. In Karl Rove's words, Dads' dilemma was a "toxic issue."

Yet, there are millions of men who would support a plank that proposed adding heterosexual men to the Civil Rights Act of 1968's protected list. Two things would happen if were to happen:

(a) The platform would be recognizing marriage as an act between a man and a woman only. This would effectively paint Democrats in a corner. If they attempted to duplicate the idea, they would alienate their large gay contingent. If they removed "heterosexual" from the wording, they would be clearly affirming their support of gay marriage. Opposing the act entirely could cost them dearly with voters they could not afford to lose.

(b) Without question, the act would lure young, minority voters away from the Democrat party. This would especially be the case with African American males under 50. It would likewise win Democrat leaning male millennials, already disgruntled with Obamacare and the job market.

Half the battle in any election is turnout. Would this issue mobilize heterosexual males? Count on it!

Fox New's Bill O'Reilly recently elaborated on a poll that showed a drop in marriage since 1980. As O'Reilly put it, "men are losing interest in marriage.They watch a wife tire of them, then divorce them, taking their estate and children in the process." In short, what's the point.

Those "rocking years," when children are small and father and mother are typically confined to the home, aren't easy! Couples either make it or don't. As women entered the work place, there became less incentive for them to stay married. In the fifties, women enjoyed fewer options.

Were things better in the fifties? Depends on your point of view. Women have made great strides in the work place. No doubt some of our finest leaders and contributors are female.

The change came because we determined that our society would be best served with duel income households. We could then maintain a standard of living that was slipping away due to the hidden tax of inflation. Dads' Dilemma amounted to collateral damage.

Sadly we have concluded that this true but "toxic" issue is best left undisturbed. However, the question has been suppressed. It has not gone away. Bringing it to the forefront could impact as many as five percent of the swing voters. Remembering how close elections have been in recent times, this is no small consideration.

All Roads Lead to Nashville

"All roads lead to Nashville, it's never far away..."

Such would be the theme of a proposed "Red State" Convention. The site would be Music City. The theme: "redefining or replacing the modern Republican Party."

The party has become too fractured. Maybe it's due to a base that wasn't around at the time of the party's inception. The origin and history of the GOP is not the subject of this post. Of greater concern is "where are we now and where are we going from here?"

It begins with defining an America that most of us want. It has nothing to do with party. Democrats as well as Independents would be welcomed, literally urged to attend the convention. The goal: "to finally undermine an order that has gradually and systematically stolen our country from us." It begins with a platform that includes the following 15 planks:

1)Term limits for Congressmen and Senators. Two, six-year terms for Senators. Six, two-year terms for Congressmen.
2)Repeal of the 17th Amendment
3)Actual ratification of the 16th amendment.(The amendment was never ratified by 3/4 of the states).
4)Elimination of all federal employees(non-military) from pension rolls. Elected officials would be included. They would pay into and receive Social Security like the rest of Americans. They would be given 401ks like the private sector. The overall Federal non-military wage would be made consistent with the current private sector average.(It is currently 60% higher)
5) Congressional pay would be cut in half, the jobs made part time.
6) Elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce. E.P.A. would be returned to it's original focus, the staff reduced to 1975 levels.
7)Obamacare would be replaced with a "half-penny" national sales tax that would be used solely for the creation of a catastrophic fund. The fund would be only accessible if a claim reached $10,000. This would be done in conjunction with (a) the removing of location restrictions(allowing insurance companies to cross state lines) and the (b) implementation of "loser pays" tort reform.
8) Adoption of English as official language and accompanying measures as outlined in my book.
9)Instigation of a federal land sell-off to Americans. The revenues would be used to pay down the federal debt.
10) Full repeal of Dodd-Frank and all measures adopted since 2008.
11) Reduction of corporate income tax to 15%.
12) Elimination of Capital Gains tax for families making less than $500,000 per year
13) Elimination of Department of Homeland Security
14) Adoption of an immigration reform plan that would target young, well educated applicants, already fluent in English. Applicants from N.A.T.O. countries would be given a preference. Those in America through "no fault of their own" would be given a "probationary path" to citizenship.
15)Fully invigorating NASA with short and long term objectives for space exploration. An emphasis would be placed on public/private sector ventures that would include international partners.

The ideology behind all 15 measures is relatively simple: "To reduce the size, scope and cost of the federal government." Individual ingenuity would return to the forefront. A premium would once again be placed upon American immagination and creativity. A less menacing federal hand would spawn enhanced innovation.

Nashville symbolizes all of these ideals. Could we not think of a better city to begin our journey?

This isn't a Republican "wish list." A lot of Republicans would have problems with many of the measures. The question becomes, "are there sufficient Republicans willing to embrace them as a whole?"

Should the the answer be "80% of the party," it will then become a question of "how many" Democrats and Independents will move over. If not, then a "replacement party"(I call them "Jeffersonians" for illustrative purposes) will send the Republicans the way of the Whig party.

In actuality, all these positions epitomize the American Dream. Anyone wanting to share in the dream is welcomed. But, it is a frightening illusion for the status quot. Over time, they have constructed an American nobility. At stake is power and control. Losing that by reducing the size, scope and cost of government would be a direct flight ticket to their demise.

An Economist's Perspective on the Civil War

The American Civil War is one of the most storied topics in history. It was, as the late T. Harry Williams described, "a tragic clash of perceptions."

The war's actual cause has been debated. Southern historians describe it as a "battle for states rights." The typical New England response then and now is "a war to emancipate those held in bondage." Mainstream America eventually concluded that it was "wrong for the South to secede and it paid the price for it."

The question still not totally answered amounts to "why would the South risk economic ruin on a principle?" Or, was it merely a principle.

Another perception is rendered through a journalist, who happens to have taken the study of economics to a different realm. G. Edward Griffin is not a Southerner. He was born in New Jersey. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and later did graduate study at the University of Denver. Today, he resides in Westlake Village, California.

In Griffin's eye opening book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," he recounted the primary cause. He writes:

"The South, being predominantly an agricultural region, had to import practically all manufacturered goods from the Northern states or from Europe, both of which reciprocated by providing a market for the South's cotton. However,many of the textiles and manufacturered items were considerably cheaper from Europe, even after the cost of shipping had been added. The Southern states, therefore, often found it to their advantage to purchase these European goods rather than those made in the North. This put considerable competitive pressure on the American manufacturers to lower their prices and operate more efficiently.

"The Republicans were not satisfied with that arrangement. Theydecided to use the power of the federal government to tip the scales of competition in their favor. Claiming that this was in the "national interest," theylevied stiff import duties on almost everything coming from Europe that was also manufactured in the North. Not surprisingly, there was no duty applied to cotton which, presumedly was not a commodity in the national interest. One result was that the Europeon countries countered by stopping the purchase of U.S. cotton, which badly hurt the Southern economy. The other result was that manufacturers in the North were able to charge higher prices without fear of competition, and the South was forced to pay more for practically all of its necessities. It was a classic case of legalized plunder in which the law was used to enrich one group of citizens at the expense of another."

In the end, the South wanted out.

German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck observed that it was "high financial powers in Europe," who had "decided years earlier" that it would be "in their best interest" if the United States was divided into "federations of equal force." In truth, these European bankers were afraid of the United States. By staying together the U.S. could "upset their financial domination over Europe and the world."

There was no doubt that both England and France had their eyes on the conflict. Shortly after Fort Sumter, France had landed troops in Mexico. By 1864, having ended all Mexican resistence, the French Monarch installed Ferdinand Maximillian, Emperor.

At the same time England moved 11,000 troops into Canada.

The war became extremely unpopular in the north. Midwesterners coined the phrase, "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight." Abraham Lincoln was forced to use the military to quell riots in New York City. Only the beguiling genius of Governor Oliver Morton, kept Indiana from dropping out of the war in 1862. Farmers resisting the draft in Southern Illinois were hung without mercy, their property burned.

In the end, more Americans died in the Civil War than all other wars combined. Lincoln is said to have compromised the constitution in an effort to save the nation.People were arrested and thrown into prison without due process. Disenters were denied Habeas Corpus. They included Indiana Senator, Samuel Milligan, Ohio Congressman, Clement Valandinghm and Kentucky Associated Press Correspondent, Martin Barr.

There was also the question of banking and funding an unpopular war. Lincoln faced a dilemma: "How to not only convince Americans in the north to die for the war but to pay for it." This was an impossibilty in itself. As Griffin writes:

"During the year ending in 1861, expenses of the federal government had been 61 million. After the first year of armed conflict they were $475 million and, by 1865 had risen to one billion, three hundred thousand dollars. On the income side of the ledger, taxes covered only about eleven per cent of that figure. By the end of the war,the deficit had risen to 2.61 billion."

The solution: Greenbacks! In 1862 Congress authorized the Treasury to issue 150 million bills of credit and place them into circulation as legal tender. Their green printing earned them the name, "greenbacks." They could be used to pay private debts but not duties or taxes. At that time, Treasury Secretary, Salmon P.Chase called them an "indispenable necessity." Eight years later, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he declared them unconstitutional.

During this time, the Rothchild consortium in Great Britain was consolidating their industrial holdings in the United States through their agent, August Belmont. It has been rumored that Belmont scheduled a meeting with Lincoln. It was then that he offered the president Rothchild money at 27.5 per cent interest. Lincoln exploded, allegedly throwing Belmont out of his office.

According to Griffin, "Lincoln objected to having the government pay interest to banks for money they created out of nothing when the government can create money out of nothing just as easily and not pay interest on it."

Of course, nothing is free. Americans on both sides paid for the war; through the backdoor tax of inflation. Lincoln ignored the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids what ultimately amounted to "plunder-by-inflation."

A great number of Americans consider Abraham Lincoln our finest president. He certainly was willing to save the union, at any and all costs! The question becomes, "could the entire war have been averted to begin with?"

Evidence is overwhelming that the South was already anticipating paying freedman wages as they looked toward industrialization. There was an argument that immediate emancipation would result in the starvation of thousands of newly freed slaves. This did occur. The vaguely remembered "Corwin Amendment" passed in February 1861, making it illegal for the federal government to seize property of individuals. At no time did Lincoln state that he would free slaves if elected.

Lincoln certainly understood the realities of protectionism. His problem was the proponents were the men who rode him into office! In retrospect it is highly probable that the entire war would have been avoided had the Northern industrialists been more flexible and compromising. A strong case can be made for their "provoking" the South into secession.

An equally strong argument can be asserted that the firing at Fort Sumter was a matter of "defending ones territory," and that the North's invasion of the South was illegal. After all, the Constitution does not prohibit secession. In fact, it was never suggested by any of the framers that the union could be enforced by the use of arms!

From this perspective, reparations paid by the North to the South would be in order.

There is the other question that remains. What if the South had gained independence? Would it have been swallowed up by the France or England and their greedy European banking cartels? Nobody will ever truly know.

The Confederate Constitution called for one, six-year presidential term. It is almost a certainty that Robert E. Lee would have been elected President in 1867.In Stephen Mallory, the Confederacy had a "gem" of a Secretary of the Navy. The South enjoyed strong commonalities with Cuba. The island was rife with turmoil. Spain had earlier considered selling it to the United States in 1857. There would have been overwhelming support in the South for acquisition.

With thousands of miles of shared borders, it would have been easy for the South to have "liberated" the Mexican people from France, then annexing the entire country. We must remember that both Arizona and New Mexico had been claimed by the Confederacy. It should likewise not be forgotten that the "perfect society" theory prevailed in the Southern states. It is believed that many freed slaves would have been "funneled" into Mexico as John Tyler had predicted twenty-five years earlier.

It is also probable that some, if not all of the Midwestern states would have eventually joined the Southern states. By the middle of 1862, it had become clear that they were fighting to enrich banking and railroad interests in the Northeast.

Griffin concludes that there "is no reason to believe that the only way to save the Union was to scrap the Constitution. If fact, if the constitution had been meticulously observed from the very beginning, the Southern minority could never have been legally plundered by the Northern majority and there likely would have been no movement for secession in the first place.

"The result would have been, not only the preservation of the Union without war, but Americans would be enjoying far less government intervention in their daily lives today."

Globalist Bankers Might Support Nullification

G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island," states that the Council of Foreign Relations(CFR) is the "true government" of the United States.

Two questions: "Who" makes up the Council of Foreign Relations? And, "why" would Griffin refer to them as the "true government" of America?

The "who" might be better described as the "who's who." Members include a lot of internationally famous people. Bill and Hillary Clinton, David Rockefeller, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, Robert Rubin, Faceed Zhakeria, Angelina Jolie and Madeline Albright are all on the roster. Overall there are about 4500 citizens of the world who hold membership.

The next question amounts to "why" is this significant? Inception of the Federal Reserve is the topic of Griffin's book. It began with a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The goal was to gain control of the world's money supply. The interests represented in that posh resort spawned what later amounted to eight banking cartels. They succeeeded.

For the past 100 years, these "interests" have mastered the art of making money from conflict. Beginning with War World One, they gained huge profits by supplying and outfitting both sides. When they ran out of enemies, they created them. "Monsters" in history such as Hitler and Stalin would never have existed without these cartels.

Which side was "right" and which side was "wrong" was never a question. The only concern was "how much money can be made" from the conflict.

They made money from crisis' as well. The great depression and the 2008 banking meltdown sent huge sums to the cartels.

Which brings us to the looming conflict in today's troubled America. If the policies of the Obama Administration are opposed by so much of the nation, "what if" nullification, the topic of last week's post, came to fruition?

Most say that it wouldn't. Naysayers point out, "secession was decided with the Civil War." But, we're not talking about secession. Nullification originally came up in 1828. There were no banking cartels. There was no Federal Reserve. Few were looking at nullification from the standpoint of "how much money" could be made from it!

This isn't the case today!

It is unlikely that nullification would spawn a second civil war. Americans would not begin shooting at each other over the concept. Fighting for principles and ideologies may sound noble. But today's nation of 315 million is slightly different from the America of 31 million in 1861.

It is highly realistic to assume that a mass population migration would result from nullification. It might start with preference for Obamacare. But Federal laws, not included in the Constitution would be evaluated state-to-state.

Just imagine! Ohio decided to keep Dodd-Frank. Kentucky decided not to. Ohio based banks might respond by moving headquarters to the south side of the the Ohio River. The Buckeye state could keep Dodd-Frank and, as conservatives would predict, "watch banking jobs leave the state." The alternative would be to join Kentucky and nullify it. Right? Proponents of Dodd-Frank would predict the contrary!

Right to Work stands as evidence that conservatives know what they are tolking about. Texas Governor, Rick Perry was accused of "job poaching" by noted conservative, Glenn Beck. But, his appeal to companies seeking a more business friendly landscape has resulted in their moving from heavily unionized states such as California, to Texas.

To implement or nullify Obamacare would have a more far reaching impact! There is no doubt that Americans seeking relief from the law, would flock to those states that nullified it. Conversely, those gaining from Obamacare, would attempt to migrate to states that implemented it.

Relocation is always accompanied by real estate activity. Much is spent on homes, building materials, furniture and, of course, the relocation itself. For banks, this amounts to a need for credit. This translates to money!

But wait! Wouldn't this kind of migration impose hardships on states that conformed to Dodd-Frank and offered Obamacare? According to their supporters, these two Obama initiatives are wonderful. What they can't understand is "why all Americans can't see the light?"

What about the carbon tax? What about alternative energy? What about drilling and energy exploration. What about all of this land owned by the federal government, for that matter?

What about Agenda 21, AKA "Sustainability?" When states begin nullifying federal law, implementing this grand illusion becomes as doable as "putting jelly on the wall with thumb tacks!" So what happened to goal of a "one world government?"

It's still there. Nullification represents a highly profitable detour. In fact, this "detour" could actually be a more effective method of reaching the overall goal.

According to former Idaho Congressmen, Curtis Bowers, the long range globalist objective is to reduce the world's population from seven billion to one billion. This would be accomplished by implementing birth control in developing nations, rationing of healthcare and limiting the world food supplies.

Americans looking for "free stuff" would flock to these more liberal American states. Healthcare, housing, food, transportation and family planning would be available. Then, as supplies became more limited, food stamps would become ration cards, housing would be similar to Stalin era, Soviet apartments, healthcare, including medicine would be rationed or unavailable and children unaffordable.

Without question, nullification would open a barrel of eels! On one hand, the nation would be transformed into the America that our founders envisioned. Conversely, it would create a means of self destruction for part of the country. The surprising factor is that this "true government" of the United States might not have a problem with it.

We always hear the prediction, "they would never let it happen!" But, in this case "they" would make big bucks if it did happen. That is precisely why we cannot dismiss nullification. Over the past 100 years, if there was a loose dollar bill to be had, they were interested.

These globalist banking cartels collectively hold a net worth of roughly 100 trillion dollars. They control artists, polticians and media; literally everything and everyone. The CFR is their front. History has proven repeatedly that "if there is money to be made from anything, whether it be war, crisis or ideology, they're in!

Nullification- Could it Actually Happen?

There is a segment of America that believes that it could!

Thomas Jefferson believed in it's constitutionality. In a famous 1798 Kentucky case he stated, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers...a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."

Thirty years later, the question of nullification arose in South Carolina. The question was, "could a state nullify a protective tariff?" This was 1828. There was a heated debate, harsh words, threat of war and ultimately, a compromise.

The issue of states rights continued to fester and finally exploded with the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861. A bloody war resulted. More Americans were killed in the four years that followed than in all subsequent wars combined!

Many Americans concluded the issue settled, once and for all. Others never did.

Revisionist historians describe the American Civil War as a war to end slavery in America. True, the Emancipation Proclamation was passed as a war measure in 1863. But the real root of the conflict can be traced to states rights and 10th amendment perception. Almost everyone who supported the Confederacy continued to believe that state law was sovereign to federal law. Much of America maintains this standard even today.

Embedded deep in the Southern psyche is the conviction that the South never really lost; that they were merely starved into submission. Children throughout the old Confederacy were told by their parents and grandparents that the "South would rise again." Economic ruin accompanied by a harsh reconstruction did little to vanquish these wistful aspirations.

One hundred years passed. It was now the 1960's and the forced implementation of Brown versus the Board of Education was in motion. The "second reconstruction" was upon America. This time, however, it went north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Everyone was told that that the measure was "in our best interest." Never mind the fact that an overwhelming majority of all races opposed it! In the end, it weakened educational standards in America, while forcing states to spend money that could have been used for education grants, better pay for teachers and better equipment.

Today Brown versus the Board of Education has been overturned. True, some stubborn school districts,dominated by left wing ideologues continue to resist. The fact remains that nullification could have allowed states to come up with their own plan.

Obamacare is another mistake in the pre-natal stages. Like Brown, those who have supported it so vigorously had good intentions. The problem with Obamacare, like Brown is that both initiatives, are at odds with the original America our framers created.

At first glance, Obamacare and Brown versus the Board of Education would bear little if any resemblance. Brown was a 1954 Supreme Court ruling. Obamacare was partisan legislation that made it through the House and Senate,later signed by the President. The connection comes from the idea that the federal government can impose it's will on individual states, forcing their people or governments to spend their money for a project that they may oppose.

These are examples of "the general government assuming undelegated power" that Jefferson referenced when he proposed "Nullification" as the "rightful remedy."

True, the concept of Nullification goes against the grain of modern American thinking. Proponents are typically pigeonholed as "nut cases, racists, right wing fringe elements" or worse! This is the traditional leftist methodology; "to label those in opposition to their way, out-of-step with the times, imbeciles, racists or morons."

This notwithstanding, there are a lot of Americans, including millions north of the Mason-Dixon line, who think that maybe the South got it right! Perhaps Nullification is the best way to deal with a Federal government grown too large and too intrusive!

Could Nullification actually happen? Don't look now, but it IS happening. We are seeing Nullification legislation in a number of states. Chief Justice, John Roberts was scorned by the right when he wrote the majority opinion upholding Obamacare. But the opinion differed from the original legislation in one key way: The federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funding from states as a punitive measure.

Would Barack Obama stand passively aside and allow Texas, Louisiana, Missouri or Idaho to "opt out" of his signature accomplishment. His markedly definant nature coupled with his confrontational demeanor would suggest not. But that may be the wrong question!

This is not 1861. Nor do we live in the age of innocence. We have television. We have cable. We have the internet. Most Americans in Connecticut won't care if Alabama residents choose not to participate in Obamacare! They certainly are not going to take up arms over such a question!

What about Homeland Security or the Military? Somehow, I don't think so. There is something alien about Americans shooting Americans because they preferred not to participate in a program that has so divided the country. More succinctly, those saying "no" to Obamacare would be exercising their constitutional right. Which brings us to the "eye of the storm!"

The United States Military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. If Nullification is indeed legal under the constitution as Jefferson said that it was, then the Military cannot act.

Homeland Security is another question. Is this agency considered bound under the same laws as the Military?

Then there are the individual state militias. Assuming the regular armed forces stayed out of it, and Homeland Security was ordered by the Administration to "engage," would not they be a factor? They could be. But, a more likely scenario would amount to those in Homeland Security choosing resignation over engagement.

There have even been suggestions that Obama might seek help from the United Nations if it ever came to an outright rebellion. I wouldn't bank on it! For two simple reasons: (1) More than half of the nation opposes Obamacare and (2) There simply isn't the will in America to implement Obamacare on dissenting states by force.

Opponents of Nullification would be quick to remind that "it wouldn't end with Obamacare." Soon the states would be behaving like small countries and that would never do! Or would it? The founders were not imbeciles or morons! This nation was founded as a Republic. We are the United States of America, not the United American States! Our very motto, "E Pluribus Unum" could not have made it more clear:

"From the many, one."

Obama Agenda, Jefferson Principles Diabolically Opposed

Not that this is a huge surprise!

The healthcare debate moves to the next round. It is improbable that Congress will be successful in slowing the train, even though a growing number of Americans are hoping that they might. In this great time of uneasiness, some solace may be found in turning to the wisdom of our founding fathers.

Let's pretend that Thomas Jefferson is currently amoung us. True, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't see the relevance. But a lot of distraught Independents including Millennials would. Jefferson's take on the "Affordable Health Care Act" would be as follows:

"To propel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

No doubt, Pelosi, Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow and friends would say, "Get over it Tom!"

However, there is much wisdom in Jefferson's statement. For starters, it is never popular to tax unwilling people. Pelosi and friends would counter in reminding all that the bill did pass and was signed into law in 2010. Never mind that the reconciliation process was needed for final Senate passage. It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court later determined it to be a "tax." Who cares if upwards of 70% of the country is now against immediate implementation!

Some of the strongest advocates of Obamacare are Americans paying little or no taxes. Jefferson had a position on this:

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those willing to work and give to those who would not."

Opponents are vocal in the fact that this legislation grows the government to historic levels. In fact, Obamacare will account for "one-sixth" of the overall economy. Much was buried in the 2700 page proposal. In the end, it became understood that the "Affordable Health Care Act," increased the size and scope of government in a manner that amounted to unprecedented intrusion into the lives of Americans. Jefferson's probable opinion on A.F.H.C.?

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." He added, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Naturally Barack Obama anticipated resistance. His solution was to increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service. This accomplished, he could then instruct them to forcefully collect from those unwilling to succumb. Many if not most Americans fear the I.R.S.. The thought of the President using this unpopular branch of government to enforce a tax opposed by the majority of Americans is seen as strangely un-American. Maybe, this is because it it just that: Un-American.

To this, Jefferson's response would have been, "when people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."

The question becomes, "how much will the American people take?" The administration fears, "not much more." As a result, efforts are in motion to disarm America. Jefferson was very clear on this notion:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." His rationale was specific: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."

A lot of alarmed Americans have seen the signs and are secretly beginning preparation for the long awaited house-to-house rat war survivalists have predicted for decades. While both liberals and moderates may scoff the thought, we must remember that there are roughly 270 million firearms accounted for in America. It is believed that many more may be unaccounted for. They are in the hands of an estimated 30% of the population.

Such apocalyptic references are greeted with disdain, even spite by the milk toast mainstream. But Jefferson may have seen it differently. He concluded, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

In other words, "you might want to dust off your exit visas, Nancy Pelosi!"

The question that arises is "how was Barack Obama re-elected" if his policies are so unpopular and his methodology so suspect? Perhaps is because they were neither unpopular or suspect to certain parts of the country.

The great megapolis of the Northeast has become a bastion of American liberal ideology. Much relates to the spoils system and the amount of American tax dollars that have been funneled their way. The counter argument amounts to "how many tax dollars" in proportion are sent to Washington by Americans living in these states. Jefferson's observation was quite profound:

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."

Ironically, the nation's greatest financial interests reside in the Northeast. G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" recounts the growth of a banking cartel, outside the framework of the U.S. Government that has systematically stolen trillions from the American people. It began in 1910. 108 years earlier, Thomas Jefferson issued a warning that amounted to prophecy:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property- until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered."

The end result has been a multi-trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow with each passing hour. Politicians have talked about solutions. But the end result has been to "kick the proverbial can" down the road. In other words, let future generations deal with the problem. Jefferson's position was very clear on this practice:

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

Including the war that could ultimately engulf America.

Few dare think of this outcome. But don't rule it out. Here's why.

We have a tiny group of international financiers who have gained control of most of the planet's wealth. The have gained advantage in this country largely with the help of non-tax paying Americans. The are literally banking on the rest of America doing nothing.

What about the 30% who control the firearms? Wouldn't the military be more than a match for them? Depends. The military is sworn to defend the Constitution. If it is perceived that the Constitution has been compromised, who knows!

Of course, there would be a much better way. Could not these cartels merely give back what was stolen?

There are currently eight banking cartels headquartered in the Northeast and Europe. Their cumulative net worth exceeds 100 trillion dollars. Nobody knows for certain how they amassed this kind of wealth.

Returning that which was stolen would probably be Jefferson's solution. The common man was always on his radar. History reflects his on going argument with Alexander Hamilton regarding "if" the common man should be trusted with governing latitude.

Perhaps these emerging Millennials may make the final determination. They will be expected to shoulder the burden of an aging population of Social Security recipients. Not to mention a massive debt! Many are shackled by currently unforgivable student loan debt. What happens if they say "nyet" to perpetual thrawl designation?

I sincerely believe that the answer is "not if, but when!" The question may be "how?"

Thomas Jefferson was one of our greatest Presidents. In rediscovering his memoirs, it is easy to conclude that the country is on the wrong track. As times become increasingly grim, reformers will be aided by two factors: (a) A large number of the older Americans who would discourage reform will die out and (b) the left will go too far, insuring a massive counterstroke by the right.

Both are happening as we speak!

Griffin described our currency as "fiat money." As he explained, "we have roughly one-half trillion in gold at Fort Knox. Yet our debt is 17 trillion?" His book described in great detail how our "money" was actually nothing but credit; a promise to be paid. If someone stops paying, the entire house of cards will fall!

The good news is, America has massive wealth under the ground and on top of it. Not to mention the resources and ingenuity of our people. True, the latter has been downplayed in recent times by the Council of Foreign Relations and other globalist entities. But it does remain, a potent force ready to reassume control.

Two things will be necessary. In Thomas Jefferson, we have one of them: a spiritual founder. His insights reflect the wisdom necessary to correct those things that went wrong.

What remains is the need for a contemporary leader. Is there someone out there who can re-introduce America to these Jeffersonian principles? More importantly, do we have a statesman who can restructure the government in a manner that it conforms to them?

The whole world is watching. And waiting.

Colorado/Washington Pot Laws Prelude for Coming Debate

Early indications suggest that the Department of Justice will take a laissez faire approach to Colorado and Washington's recent Marijuana law changes. The somewhat tentitive wording suggests that it may represent temporary constituent appeasement.

Both Colorado and Washington broke for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Colorado was considered a swing state. Politically, a different verdict would have sent mixed signals. Some recall Alaska in 1980.

At that time, the "Last Frontier" was the only state allowing both recreational use and private cultivation. When the state refused to criminalize the process, they were threatened with funding cuts. Specifically, "make it illegal or lose your highway money." Alaska didn't buck Uncle Sam!

That was then. But this is a different day. Alaska and Oregon now look to be the next states to legalize. From there, who knows? There are two arguments in play. One is moral. The other is ideological.

Some polls indicate that the majority of America favors legalization. But where are these Americans? Could the percentage be different, state-to-state?

Whether legalization is favored or not, the debate offers the perfect opportunity to distinguish conservatives. In short, a true Constitutionalist may be vehemently opposed to legalization. At the same time, he must admit that, in accordance with the 10th amendment, it is the individual state's call! New Conservatives(Neo-Cons) would never bring the 10th amendment into the debate.

The Marijuana question offers a golden opportunity to define conservatism. On one side is the issue itself. On the other side is the principle of states' rights. To many conservatives, "strict construction" is a thorny subject. We have seen it emerge with other issues. Governor Rick Perry and Senator Rick Santorum's reaction to the New York Gay rights legislation heads the list.

Perry would favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, as he proffered, "New York passed a law allowing it and under the 10th amendment, they have that right." Santorum favored other measures short of the amendment process that would have stymied the action.

Does this make Senator Santorum a "Neo-Con?" Probably. He openly favors intervention from Washington, D.C., on an action that is truly within the state's jurisdiction. This is no different than the ultimatum given to Alaska in 1980 by the federal government. An action thwarting Gay marrage or Marijuana legalization would fall under the the definition of "a large, Washington, D.C. based government," their purpose being "to advance and facilite conserative principles."

The Constitutionalist counter is "good, bad, or indifferent, both are state issues," as defined by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have thought so!

"E Pluribus Unum" translated is "from the many, one." As an Obama supporter concluded, "it makes it sound like we are a collection of tiny countries." This can't be right! Can it?

Actually, it is! This is what our founders had in mind when they put the nation together. True, there are members on both sides of the aisle who scoff at such a notion. In some cases, utter contempt is the standard.

What is dangerous about this traditional reasoning is that it both contradicts the mantra of "big government knows best," and it is non-partisan. Democrats, Republicans and Independents can find common ground under the 10th amendment's conclusion that "birds of a feather should flock together."

Not convinced? Remember that infamous Tampa, Tea Party sponsored, Republican debate, September 2012? Governor Perry defended a Texas legislative ruling that waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Santorum was joined by Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney in declaring that Texas' action was the incorrect one. Perry reminded the house that, no matter what they thought in Massachusetts, Minnesota or Pennsylvania, it was Texas' business. And, according to the Constitution, it is!

Conservative champion, Glenn Beck has accused Perry of "job poaching." But the Governor retorts, that "each state is meant to be a laboratory." In short, healthly, self sufficient states get better because they are in competition with each other. No longer is the name of the game, "how much can we procure from the D.C coffers?"

Republicans, even more so than Democrats, are threatened by this posture! It amounts to "downsizing and de-emphasizing" Washington. For D.C. influence peddlers, it would represent a mortal wound. Those "big government conservatives," would fear being left high and dry.

Today, the GOP looks to be facing a choice: "redefine their standard of conservatism or go the way of the Whigs!" Both country and party spoke definitively and decisively in 2008 and 2012. Confirmed was that the "Neo-Con" vision was more in step with that of the Democrats.

In essence, the issue isn't as much about Marijuana as it is, "do the states have the right" to make the call? From our founders' point of view, they do!

So there it is; the ultimate threat to our Washington, D.C. establishment. It is relatively easy to understand why any political candidate, especially a candidate for President of the United States, spouting 10th amendment truisms, is considered a threat.

Therefore, if Rick Perry decides to run for President in 2016, he may use that same argument used against Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governors race. For those who remember, Hutchinson went down a list of "things that we(in Washington, D.C.) have done for you."

Perry's response: "Those things would be(and should be)better handled from Austin."

Denver and Olympia would agree.

Republicans Hanging on to Dated Legacy

If only Jeb Bush would run for President!

With mid terms approaching, Republicans can only dream of those six Senate seats. There are several combinations that would work. But Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska look SO winnable. All six states broke for Mitt Romney in 2012. In most cases, the result wasn't close.

Democrats see 2014 as the year where the Repbublicans' last chance(hopefully) comes up short. And it might. If it does, it might be a long time before Republicans are this close to controlling both houses. However, it's no certainty that Dems can split the remainder of the board. 51-47 could easily become 53-45.

With Obamacare now accurately positioned as a "tax," many former advocates may be rethinking the entire legislation. Without question, if Republicans retake the Senate, while holding the House, a floor vote will happen. Then those Democrats still holding to their convictions will be forced to defend their vote for a middle class tax increase.

It is fortunate for the Republican establishment that this "diversion" will take forefront. The party has never been closer to a split. This past election and the all out effort to "cram Mitt Romney down the throats" of the base, will not be forgiven or forgotten. The bases problem amounts to identifying friend and foe.

Imagine a triangle. On one corner, you have the traditional "Dewey Rockefeller Republicans." Sean Hannity accurately identifed John McCain as a leader of this faction. He is joined by Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, Lincoln Chaffee(now an independent), Lowell Weicker, Dede Scazafava, William Weld and what remains of those originally labeled "liberal Republicans." Today, they are commonly referred to as R.I.N.O.s(Republicans in name only).

Actually R.I.N.O.s of today were pretty much the norm fifty years ago. They didn't change their positions. The party gradually drifted away from them. I can recall Paul Tsongas, a Democrat who referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." He was considered by most Democrats as "more in tune with Republican" standards. And, from a pure fiscal point of view, he was.

The second end of the triangle is reserved for the "New Conservatives." Many might have been in the "Dewey Rockefeller" camp in 1958.(George H.W. Bush is one who comes to mind) Others came from (not surprisingly) Democrat roots. During the 1950's, many Democrats who took exception to federal intervention on such items as the court ordered busing, school prayer and abortion. They were not to the point where they wanted to discard the overall plan. But, they sought to draw a line. Their support for a strong military gained them much coveted status as "conservatives."

Were they actually conservatives? In their eyes, they were. However, their ideas of conservatism were not that far removed from the Dewey Rockefellers. Nor, did it conflict with the New Deal concept of the "central government managing" the economy. Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul described these new conservatives as "Neo-Cons." According to Paul, they advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government to advance and facilitate conservative principles."

The "dogmatics" occupy the triangle's apex. These Republicans seek a "full repeal of Roe versus Wade," advocate a constitutional amendment that would "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," and to "deport all residents holding no legal status."

"Neo Cons" have successfully connected with this third group by taking a "pro life" stance on abortion. They have also indicated their "anti-gay marriage" preference. In doing so, they have strategically out manuevered the "Dewey
Rockefellers," effectively taking control of the party.

The question is "what percentage" of the true Republican base is represented by all three groups collectively? Surprisingly, it may be less than half. Some say it may be less than one-fourth, more like 20%! If that's the case, who actually composes the base?

During the past 30 years an interesting phenomenon has unfolded. The South, traditionally referred to as the "solid south" switched from reliably Democrat to solid Republican. It actually began in 1964 and continued into the seventies. Jimmy Carter temporarily slowed the defection in 1976. But the reprieve proved to be "fools gold." Carter may have been a Southerner. But his ideology was more consistent with his running mate, Walter Mondale. Southerners eventually figured this out and dumped him in 1980.

Ronald Reagan won the hearts and minds of Southerners with his promise to "reduce the size and cost of government." Out of nowhere emerged a new standard. True, the former California governor lacked the typical Republican pedigree. But his programs were not at odds with party pursuits. A standard had been established. And with it an alternative to the idea of a consolidation of power in Washington, D.C..

So there is lies! True, Appomattox is 148 years in the rear view mirror. But the spirit of states rights(Reagan called it federalism)lives. As a result, a "constititionalist" finds open and accepting ears to their argument that the "founders got it right."

Somewhere between the three corners of the triangle the "meat" of the party has emerged. They are made up of "Reagan Democrats," those who switched parties in the eighties, "10thers," who seek a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. Because they are a "hodge podge" of interests and viewpoints, they have been slow to assume their rightful place as "party chiefs and captains." However, one leader, one election could change that.

Democrats actually fear this result more than the Republican Establishment. These Republicans do not represent the Harvard or Yale crowd. In fact, most aren't wealthy. This is middle class America manifested. There is much common ground with traditional Democrats, namely JFK Dems. There are likewise countless commonalities with voters who refer to themselves as "Independents." It points to a "Ronald Reagan type" general election result.

Neo-Cons are hoping that Jeb Bush will ultimately throw his hat into the ring. While general election victory will not be assured, a lightly contested primary will be. The GOP status quot will continue. More conservative judicial appointments would be expected. Some sort of a national healthcare compromise would be reached. The military would be maintained. Big business would breathe a little easier.

Democrats know that Bush's nomination will make for a difficult, yet winnable general election. Florida will likely be off the board. John Kasich's selection as running mate could create an "electoral math problem." A Mexican first lady would be something new. But the message and the Republican image would remain largely intact.

The problem stems from "what if Jeb elects not to run?" All indications thus far point in that direction. If he ultimately decides to stay out, the race will be wide open like never before. And, that could ultimately result in a take over by the base.

It took a few years to figure it out. But, smarter minds have prevailed. The present Republican leadership is feeble at best. Money can always be found. And a new direction, complete with dynamic new leadership, stressing traditional American principles can lead to a new American experiment.

New Round Approaching; Have Republicans Learned Their Lesson?

We can all see it coming!

The shock of losing the 2012 presidential election has worn off for Republicans. Even those heated blame game, post election writings, are mostly a memory. The party is eying the 2014 midterms with vigor.

Obamacare is as large a specter as ever. Dodd-Frank looms as the juggernaut aimed at destroying the financial sector. The other side continues to not get the point that high corporate taxes encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.

What are we missing? Could it be trust? And if so, why?

Cynicism is rampant in America. Republican. Democrat. Independent. As one former CIA operative put it, "it's like a university with a red team and blue team." They are "opponents." But actually, "opposite extremes of the same ingredient."

One disgusted Republican, who referred to himself as a "constitutionalist" described the Washington establishment as "Republicrats and Democans." As he reminded, they posture, then meet behind closed doors and ultimately proclaim that they have "reached a consensus."

When reviewing the pedigree of today's political leaders, it is quickly noted that they generally belong to the same club. It is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and that infamous creed of Ivy elites. You might call them, "America's ruling class."
Almost sounds like "nobility," doesn't it? I thought that we had left that distinction behind in England, France, Germany or wherever our ancestors came from! Obviously, I was mistaken!

True, you can hail from a university outside the league. But the idea of term limits is something that has been positioned as a guaranteed way of your "non-league" representitive compromising influence. Especially when dealing with the ever growing federal bureaucracy.

In a previous post, we differentiated "New Conservative(Neo-Con) and "Constititionalist Conservatives." We showed the historic ties between the Neo-Cons and the current Democrat leadership. We even attempted to explain how both had impacted the churches.

The Neo-Con methodology mandates a close association(and preferably control) of the central bureaucracy. Because the Constitutionalists seek a more literal 10th amendment application, the bureaucracy is seen as something to downsize, as opposed to manipulate.

History isn't always kind! A suggested link to Leon Trotsky would outrage Republican Establishment types. So would the suggestion that the Democrat leadership is three generations removed from the Frankfort school. Yet, the end result speaks for itself.

Middle America is fuming. We are watching our country gradually melt away. The jobs that have returned have been generally "part time for less money." The cost of healthcare isn't decreasing. College tuition, except in the state of Texas, is skyrocketing out of sight. At every turn we are seeing more government. There is growing concern about a vast erosion of our privacy.

Yes, Americans are slightly cynical! And, for good reason! The question that looms is quite simple: "Can we resume trust in those same "Repubicrats and Democans to work something out, finding a "consensus?" Do we have any real choice?"

Maybe. But we must again consult history. Who was arguably the most effective president over the past fifty years and why?" If you answered Ronald Reagan, we're in agreement. Obviously most Democrats would say Bill Clinton. Some might say John F. Kennedy. For that reason, we will point out a commonality that all three shared.

Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy were "supply siders." They all believed in a market based economy. Barack Obama, the Bushes, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon were Keynesians. They believed that you could spend your way out of a recession. This notation is worth careful study.

John Maynard Keynesian, the famous British economist heavily influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal has the Keynesian stamp. Historians conclude that Keynesian was influenced by Marxist theory.

Clinton, unlike both Reagan and Kennedy did not cut taxes. In fact,under his watch, the American people endured one of the largest tax increases in history. We also witnessed the beginning of the largest wealth transfer ever. This continued through the Bush years and remains in motion as Obama begins his second term.

Somehow, this sounds inconsistent! At least inconsistent with what candidates were supposed to stand for. Or, perhaps the country has simply grown so large and so complicated that a president is naught but a figurehead! At least one group thinks so.

"The Republic" is a grassroots organization that emphatically proclaims that America is neither Republican or Democrat. In fact, they describe the United States as "a corporation." Worse still, we are no longer run by people within our borders. It's truly a "global thing."

Sounds a big "lugubrious," to say the least!

For those not yet on board with "the Republic," another theory beacons. In 1910 a group of high level bankers secretly met at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The topic: "Big banks declining market share." The solution: "The Federal Reserve."

If you have read, "G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you noted that these banking interests were largely from the Northeastern U.S. and Western Europe. Through the backdoor tax of inflation, the American people were unknowingly coaxed into paying for World World War one, the Bolshevik revolution, the saving and replenishing of England's 1920's social welfare system, the Great Depression, World War two, the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the banking meltdown.

Inflation was their tool. Case in point: Look how much a dollar bought in 1910. Look how much it buys today! Meanwhile, these same cartels' collective net work has topped 100 trillion dollars! Nobody knows for certain exactly how they accumulated it. But some of us have an idea...

Which brings us full circle as to where we are today. We have a middle class that is shinking with every passing hour. We have a growing number of Americans in poverty. And, we have a tiny enclave of fortunates who are getting more wealthy by the minute. It is eerily reminiscent of Matt Damon's recent box office smash, "Elysium."

America needs a champion. More specificially it needs Ronald Reagan. Or, better yet, two Ronald Reagans.

While Kennedy was part of the club, he was a statesman. Clinton aspired to be part of the club. Where he swooned was after his admission to it. Unlike Kennedy and Reagan, the former Arkansas Governor never faced down the Soviet Union. He served in post Cold War America. His deficit reduction was a fruit of it!

A large number of Americans feel that only a social awakening can alter the decline. A point can be made to encourage life with the same intensity as termination. Yet, the issue maintains the perception of being "hot," or in Karl Rove's words, "toxic."

By the same token another formally "toxic" term may not be as toxic as in times past. The ability of individual states becoming more self sufficient is becoming a talking point. The term "Fedealism"(used to describe Reagan's agenda) is giving way to "individual laboratories" where states are encouraged to "invent" and practice "entrepreneurship."

Naturally, this goes against the grain of the "Neo-Cons." Not to mention, contemporary Democrats. After all, this thinking is polar opposite to their vision of a large, Washington, D.C. based central government, making decisions for us that are, naturally, in our best interest!

Republicans have a choice. If they find "Elysium" sexy, they should embrace a nominee like the last one. For those who think that "going left is safe," remember 2008. Both candidates were "Neo-Cons," by the way.

Conversely, a return to Federalism could be the true path to prosperity. Still, to embrace the 10th amendment is frightening. Our people have been conditioned to see big government as a security blanket. There must be tangibles that accompany change.

There must also be a certain amount of sensitivity exhibited by proponents. The other side will use scare tactics. What makes it even more difficult is opponents to Federalism sit on both sides of the aisle.

Constitutional conservatives can introduce new dialog, long considered "taboo" by Neo-Cons. Discussions about a "wealth transfer" aren't generally initiated by Republicans. Neither is a "Catastropic health insurance pool." Ditto for restrictions on offshore outsourcing and how to they could be "implemented in conjunction with a "cut" in corporate taxes.

A proclamation of "America first" hasn't been heard in recent times. In fact, the current President spent his first year making apologies to our European friends, on our behalf. Strangely enough, however, you haven't heard him apologize to the American people for the number of jobs that have been shipped abroad.

A Constitutional conservative can deride Fortune 500 companies. They can even link them to the same globalist banking cartels who systematically stole trillions from the American people. By merely recounting the policies and philosophies of our founding fathers, Constitutionalists can make the case for a grand exit from the United Nations and Isolationism.

Neo-Cons shiver at the very thought! But, the mood in America is troubled, positively restive! More Americans are feeling that they have been poorly served by their leadership. It won't be difficult to kindle the kind of fire that could really transform Amerioa.

All that is needed is another Ronald Reagan. Preferably two of them.

Blinded by the Name

To most Democrats, the Clinton name is magical.

"Fifty somethings" revert to the promise of 1995 when the gentle breezes of bi-partisanship begin to envelope Washington D.C. They remember the soft, amiable plea of "working together for a common cause." This rare flicker of reason made the case that both sides had good arguments. Yes, Bill Clinton was a master; at getting the mainstream to simply like him.

Reviews are still mixed concerning his overall success. To Democrats, he was the right mix of ideological principle and practical wisdom. Republicans point out that his success came as a result of a Congress and Senate not controlled by his party. All agree on one point: Bill Clinton was more pragmatist than ideologue.

It stands to reason that his "wife," Hillary would attract those still remembering Bill's magic. What is often overlooked is the simple fact that Hillary is not Bill. In fact, if one forgets her eight year stint in the White House as first lady, judging her strickly on her own merit, the clouds begin to gather. The question becomes, "would Hillary truly be the best option for America?"

A few vaguely remember "Hillary care." This was the debacle of 1993, when Democrats attempted to ram national health care down the throats of America. The end result was decisive 1994 losses in the House and Senate, resulting in loss of control in both chambers.

Hillary's subsequent relocation to New York City and Senate run made poltical sense. But, when reviewing her accomplishments at that post, you must dig!

The 2008 Presidential nomination appeared to be hers. During that January primary, I recall working as a Miami precinct captain. Both Republicans and Democrats concluded that she was in, predicting that Barack Obama would be her running mate. Republicans only question was "who" could defeat her in the general election. The notion that "an experienced moderate would stand the best chance" lead to the selection of John McCain.

Barack Obama is evidence that "credentials" mean little in a Presidential election. Hillary's lackluster term as a New York Senator was followed by a close Presidential primary loss. Toss in a stormy, if not suspect stint as Secretary of State and the "stretch" to locate success continues.

In essence, this woman has had every advantage, every benefit of the doubt. She has been embraced by a partisan media. She has been the recipient of a bottomless pool of funding. And, if the truth be confronted, she has accomplished very little in every position of leadership that she has held.

How could this happen? Are Americans blind? Is party affiliation and the promise of boonies so great in our society that we can simply overlook impotence?

Evidently so. We must remember, Hillary Clinton is your consummate globalist. Like Bill, she is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. She favors one world government. She believes in Agenda 21, AKA "sustainability." She is a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky.

Poppycock! Nobody believes in any of that stuff! Right?

The majority of America simply can't see this. For starters, it is too deep. Secondly, it is outrageous. It is what conspiracy theories are made of. When anyone of any standing in media begins to laud these accusations, they are quickly dismissed from the limelight.

Americans want peace and security. Any departure threatens most of the nation. True, certain parts of America are more self reliant. But, as a nation, we see government as a "backstop" to catastrope. Most of the country would opt for less freedoms in favor of more guarantees.

What about Americans who don't hold to these convictions? They do exist. And where they dominate, overall prosperity dominates with them. Look at Texas!

During the past five years Texas has created "one of every two" new, full time jobs in America. Companies are flocking to the Lone Star state. True, many are taking advantage of targeted tax incentives to relocate. But, this is the tip of the iceberg! When comparing the entire package, ranging from education to the environment, not to mention the economy, it's all about a more workable system.

Rick Perry has been Governor since 2000. To be sure, his strict, fiscal standards have drawn criticism. His naysayers continue to remind the country of the number of Texans not having health insurance. But the comeback is always the same: "We built a stronger state because we let people keep more of their money."

Can anyone visualize a 2016 Perry-Hillary face-off? Some are beginning to pencil it in.

If there was every a Presidential election that pitted an achiever/accompisher versus a non-achiever/non- accomplisher, it would be this one. Hillary supporters would be outraged with this comparison! But, the truth is what it is. It would be the "New York Yankees versus the Chicago Cubs!"

Rick Perry has a long list of accomplishments, running the second largest state in the Union. Texas has an economy that is 30% larger than Austrailia's. It is an extremely diverse state, sharing 1200 miles of border with a foreign country. Issues such as immigration and defense require actual response, not rhetoric in Texas. He has confronted both successfully, hampered only by Washington, D.C. restrictions.

If it sounds too logical, it is! Perry has critics from both the right and the left. Republicans are split. Smart money suggests that Perry would never get out of the early primaries. His biggest challenge would be to stay alive during the early two "blue state" races. The Governer learned that even his own party members don't want to talk about his Texas report card.

Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are hopelessly divided.

Imagine a triangle. The Bill Kristol "Neo-Cons" are on one end of the triangle, the New England, "R.I.N.O.'s" on the second end of the triangle and the "Dogmatics" on the third end! Perry is neither! True, his contingency represents more than half of the party (Some believe it may be as high as 80%). Doesn't matter! The first two groups control the party machinery. The third group is ready to bolt the party!

Could things possibly look more promising for Hillary? Who cares if her career report card reflects a "C minus!"

Rubio's Overture First Step Toward "E"

This past week Florida Senator, Marco Rubio came out in favor of "requiring passage of an English proficiency exam" for a Green Card. Could he have read "E" is for English? For those who did, you'll remember that this was one of the proposals.

These are troubled times in our country. While everyone continues to anticipate an economic rebound, there remains creeping doubt on if things will ever truly turn around. It comes from an economy that is not producing jobs at a rate that is keeping up with population growth. There are millions who remain under employed. Still others have given up, either taking early Social Security or finding other ways to make ends meet.

Obamacare rests squarely on the horizon. Those in the industry are getting a preview and don't like what they are seeing. As one veteran senior administrator put it, "people are being booted out of hospitals prematurely. They don't understand." The question most asked is, "how could AARP endorse such a program?"    

The 108 million Baby Boomers are beginning to retire. There are not sufficient numbers to replace them. Pragmatists see proper immigration reform as a partial answer. Yet, like the Soviet Union in the mid-1980's, we are so caught up in political correctness, lawsuits and threats of some sort of discrimination that we are essentially "bound and gagged."

For those who were around during the Reagan years, you remember that we were surging ahead with computers and the "Strategic Defense Initiative," AKA "Star Wars." Meanwhile, the Soviets were enmeshed in endless Communist prohibitions. The Reagan led America left them in the dust. In 1989 the U.S.S.R. died quietly.

Perhaps we have forgotten the eighties. If so, it's time for a refresher course. Thirty years ago, Walter Mondale and friends were touting that they would "draw the line" on placing  defense missles "into the heavens."

When the Reagan tax cuts were introduced, it was Mondale who protested, "in the name of decency."  Their alternative was "higher taxes" for the rich. The intrepretation of "rich" amounted to anyone making more than $20,000 per year(1984 money).

They talked about "social justice." This translated to a federal government that sought greater involvement in our everyday lives. Out-of-touch Federal Judges were handing down mandates that generally equated to needless and unjustified spending for state and local governments.

It appears that we have gone full circle.

Reagan left office 25 years ago. Today's 40-year-old wasn't likely engrossed in civics at age 15. Most can't remember the Soviet Union or the Cold War. What some do remember, vaguely, is 1992. That was the year that Bill Clinton came into office. It was the period when we began to hear that increasingly utilized term: "Political Correctness."

Check history! "Political Correctness" is derived from Marxism. Somehow, it became "uncool" to criticize anything or anybody who might be at odds with the status quot. During Clinton's tenure, America benefited greatly from the demise of the Soviet Union. Money originally ticketed for defense became available for other needs.

Clinton and company made a bid for Universal Health Care in 1993. Remember "Hillary Care?" It crashed and burned, leading to a 1994 Republican takeover in the House and Senate. As was his practice, Clinton moderated. Some meaningful legislation did pass.
Was Bill Clinton actually a moderate?

A better word was "pragmatist." He assessed the landscape and elected to play "small ball,"gaining minor victories while securing his legacy.

Those who lived in Arkansas at the time of his Governorship contended that Bill was "right" of his wife. Hillary was always seen as the "liberal outsider" who adversely influenced her husband. Yet, those who knew Bill Clinton described his as "Walter Mondale with an Arkansas drawl." It came as no surprise when he aggressively stumped for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid.

Which leads us back to our "full circle."

We may have "1980 in 2016." Current polls are not predicting it. But, it is early. A lot could happen over the next 30 months! Including, the introduction of legislation that would "bag" all concerns in one brilliant stroke of  "politically incorrectness."

Obamacare could ultimately lead to nullification. The more states that exercise nullification, the more that will consider it. Once it starts, other federal laws and mandates will come under the microscope! In the end, "opt out" might become a watch phrase!

This is a dangerous path for the country. Yet it is constititional. So is a states right to dissolve it's relationship with the union. Some states may be quietly contemplating this development. Has anyone noticed Texas $1,000,000 advertising expenditure in the hope of luring New York and Connecticut based companies to move their operations  to the Lone Star state?

Sound crazy? Don't bet the the ranch on it! There are a lot of angry people in the country. Very angry people! As in, mad enough to take up a gun and look for targets.

 Obamacare represents one-sixth of the economy. More than half of the country doesn't want it. Yet the proponents are hell bent on cramming it down the rest of the countries throat! Bad idea!

Even worse is the push to naturalize every possible "non-incomed" person, promising them boonies(including medical cards) in exchange for support. Who would have believed such arrogance! Yet, it is upon us. The bet is Americans will sitting back and do nothing, allowing those with "no skin" in the game to call the shots.

What Senator Rubio supports is the first step toward arresting this momentum. If we can have a literacy test for a Green Card, we can have a literacy test for a Voter I.D. Card. And this is the predicted path that will ultimately lead to a paradigm shift in America.

Can it happen? Yes it can! Fed up Americans will happily consent to this change in the suffrage standard. Even those "on the fence" will gladly acquiesce when introduced to an apocalyptic alternative that promises war, bloodshed and worse.

Amazingly, what is front of us is not new! The Mondale people were talking these same ideas in the seventies and later the eighties. True, many who were around then are not here now. The hope is that the "new blood" can re-introduced to these same tired arguments.

Rubio's position is new and somewhat startling. He is positioning assimilation as the gate keeper to citizenship. English as the official language will soon follow. The majority of America is with the Florida Senator. When the last piece of the puzzle, literacy, becomes part of the mix, the nation will then move toward it pivotal choice:

At that juncture, the debate will be over.

Enter the "E" Amendment.

The "Heart and Soul" of the "E" Amendment

Yes, the proposed "E" Amendment would be easy enough to "demagogue." The mere thought of a "literacy test" evokes painful memories of the 1960's civil rights movement. Yet, when the full proposal is laid out and properly explained, a new revelation begins to take shape.

Marty G., an agent from a New York based, E-Publisher recently shared his thoughts on "E" is for English. In a three-way meeting with myself and my book distributor, Marty professed to be a "liberal Democrat." He admitted support for all left wing causes, ranging from abortion rights, same sex marriage, universal health care and a progressive tax system. But he also supported universal English literacy in America.

"I am a Progressive," Marty lauded. "but that doesn't make me a Communist. Your book identifies a block of Americans, perhaps 15, maybe even 20% who are functionally illiterate in English. That's scary!

"What's even more disconcerting," Marty admitted, "is that there are a small number of "power brokers" who want to keep it that way! Because, as you pointed out, illiterate people are easier to control."    

When Cary J., the distributor's representitive questioned "IF" nationwide support would be possible for the "E" Amendment, Marty mused. "I grew up in Boston and have lived in both Providence and Montpelier. I can tell you now, those states would ratify the "E" Amendment."

Really?

Cary J. is a Chicago native. Calling herself a "Bill Clinton Democrat," her original observation of the book described it as a "sweet spot" between Republican Establishment and Tea party. Marty was opening up a new dimension.

"Face it," Marty explained, "this book is totally non-partisan. But, it is somewhat revolutionary." He went on to note that the public school mandate of six years of a second language, beginning in third grade, would have "heavy support" in the East. So would the teaching of Transformational Grammar.

When I pointed out Dr. Tomas Mauricio's(former University of Kentucky Associate Professor of Liberal Arts) prediction that "half the children would take Spanish, the other half electing a different language," Marty agreed.

"There would be more available Spanish teachers. Besides, 16% of the country has Spanish roots. The thought of their children learning Spanish history, geography and culture, not to mention proper "Castilian" Spanish, as opposed to "back alley "Spanglish" would have these parents aboard! Believe me! They are as focused on assimilation as my Jewish ancestors from Poland were in the 1890's! 

"The "slow assent" Jeff described would be just that: a gradual immersion into the language.  Third graders would start with "comic books" and word games. In the fifth grade, they would be studying geography and history of those countries that used the language.

"By the time that they were in the eighth grade, they would be reading classics like "Don Quixote.(assuming they had elected Spanish as their second language)." The summer following their Freshmen year, there would be field trips taken to those countries using their selected language."

"What does this have to do with Transformational Grammar?" Cary wanted to know. "As a matter of fact, what is Transformational Grammar?"

At that juncture, I explained that all languages were the same in deep structure. Transformational Grammar is the tranference of language from surface structure to deep structure. The goal is to teach children "how to think."

After agreeing that it all "sounded good," Cary had another question. " Why do we need to make people take a fourth grade English proficiency test to qualify for a voter I.D. card? What does this have to do with teaching six years of a second language in the public schools."

Marty had a ready answer. "Children are our future. We must make them better than we were. Learning a second language will strengthen their use of English.

"But, English is the language that most favor. If we do not "raise the bar," and force people to learn it, they won't! If we make "English only" the law, those resisting will be forced to live by it.

"People are lazy, let's face it!" Marty concluded. "We have made it possible for them not to assimilate!"

Both Marty and Cary were especially impressed with the potential savings that would come from "English only" official use, ranging from voting ballots, drivers license testing, government signage and official documents. Not to mention the immigration plan that was introduced in the book.

"There have been a lot of immigration ideas floating around." Marty reminded. "None have suggested that "passage of a 10th grade English proficiency exam," be part of the mix! But it accomplishes a lot of what the Dream Act would do. At the same time, it clarifies the 14th amendments reference to qualification. Not to mention defining entitlement eligibility."

Marty left convinced that "gaining two-thirds majorities" in both House and Senate would be "easily achievable."

When asked to predict Barack Obama's reaction to the legislation, Marty laughed, "He's a front man. Most of those behind him would not want to lose their "Sheeple." Him personally? I agree with that Chicago lawyer. I think that he would buy it!"

In essence, the "heart and soul" of the proposed "E" Amendment is "accelerated assimulation" through acceptance of English as the official language. But the goal is not for mere ceremonial use! We want our people to be the "masters" of the language, with our children taking the lead.

We also want a society that is culturally deeper. A multi-linguel population will make us stronger as a nation. We need to use this "strand" that binds us as a "unifier." Those opposing English as the official language seek to weaken us. Their aim is a global society where we are mere spoke in  the wheel. Our thrust is to maintain American exceptionalism. To achieve this goal, we must be 100% literate in one language.

87% of the country says that language should be English.

Could Eagles for America Actually Push "E" Through?

 They could. But it might take a while!

The challenges are enormous. But the mood in the country has never been better. Let's take a quick review of the original purpose of the "Eagles for America." For those who have read "E" is for English, you might want to review chapters seven and eight.

A Constitutional Amendment is an ambitious undertaking. Some would conclude that it would be a "next to impossible" undertaking! Getting two-third of the United States Congress to agree on anything looks like a lost cause. To imagine both the Congress and Senate reaching such a consensus is even more unlikely.

And, of course, we are not finished! 37 of 50 states would need to ratify the proposed "E" Amendment. Impossible?

If there is any encouraging aspect of the amendment process it is the fact that the President would not be involved in the decision. That's right! Hollingsworth versus Virginia answered that question in 1798.

University of Kentucky Professor of Economics, John Garen suggested that "we might not need a constititional amendment to accomplish our goal." Dr. Garen knows what he is talking about. But there is one minor problem, not going the amendment route: "An expected onslaught of litigation efforts."

The "E" Amendment would make English, the official language in the United States. But, it would go further. The proposal mandates "passage of a fourth grade English proficiency examination as a prerequisite for a voter identification card." The I.D. card would have a photograph and thumb print. A voting booth retinal scan is likewise discussed as an option.

The proposal disallows all languages save English for voting ballots, drivers license testing, official documents and literally anything done under the auspices of government. In short, the objective is "accelerated assimilation."

Without question, the "diversity cultists" would cry foul. There would be screams of "disenfranchisement." Al Sharpton would "have kittens!"

The Eagles' mission would be to patiently explain the legislation's rationale to America. The second objective would be to hammer away at elected leaders, stressing the need for a "smarter, stronger more secure America."

Eagles would be headquartered in thirty individual "cells" from one end of the country to the other. The "Cell Directors" would generate correspondence to all interested parties within their designated area. They would lead by example in email and texting campaigns designed to recruit new Eagles while helping sell their local, state and federal political leaders on the proposal's merit.

Their primary guide would be the Eagles for America Internet Newspaper. This would be the national sounding board for all who were activists in the movement.

According to Washington, D.C. based, U.S. English, 87% of America favors making English the official language. U.S. English, Pro-English and English First are the three Washington based foundations currently engaged in the endeavor.

Which brings us to the next question: "If foundations are already attempting to make it happen, why would we need Eagles for America to push a constititional amendment that would have a similar effect?" The answer is cut and dry.

These foundations are made up of wonderful committed Americans. They have made  progress. But, they appear willing to settle for the "low hanging fruit."

The "E" Amendment tackles illiteracy. The goal is total literacy in America. The desire is to make Americans the "masters of the language." A deeper inspection of the proposed amendment reveals a national public school requiremenmt of "six years of a second language," beginning in third grade. It also proposes teaching "Transformational Grammar," as opposed to "Traditional Grammar."

Transformational Grammar is the art of "transforming" a sentence from "surface structure to deep structure."(All languages are the same in deep structure) Many contemporary English teachers complain that Transformational Grammar is a "mathematical approach to English." Others suggest that it is confusing, likely forcing the teachers themselves to return to the classroom to get the full grasp.

The requirement of six years of a second language has some support. Especially the plan that the book discusses that is described as a "slow assent." A language begins with "who is speaking it," the book argues. Learning the history, geography and culture of those who speak a language is believed to broaden understanding of the language itself. Or, as the book phrases, "our goal is to teach our children how to think."

The overall concept is revolutionary. Make no mistake! There will be a lot of members of the educational establishment who will vehemently oppose it. And Eagles will counter this opposition in pointing out that the "E" Amendment's ultimate goal is to "turn Sheeple into People."

Eagles will actually draw energy from criticism. When the idea is scoffed as expected by some, their tone will change. All not in favor of this legislation are "un-American, un-patriotic and unfit for leadership in the country."

Eagles for America will attempt to drive home a simple point: "Everyone in America should have a shot at the American Dream. This is impossible if you do not have a grasp of the language."

Could this point be argued? Probably! But, who wants to make that argument? According to Eagles the argument will be made by power brokers interested in keeping a segment of the population in permanent bondage. It amounts to "drone duty:" or life as a "thrall." Illiterate people are much easier to control than those who can read. And, as the book emphatically states, "literate people begin asking tough questions" that these power brokers don't want to answer!

These thirty Eagles for America "cells" would constititute the national movement. The Internet Newspaper would be their homing beacon. The goal is relatively simple. But, the impact would shake the nation.

Not surprising would be the billions of dollars that would be saved on unfunded mandate costs that have come from the U.S. Justice Department. There has not been a study confirming how much. But, as Dr. Garen suggested, "state and local governments would defintely feel it."

Defining Conservatism. What is and what isn't?

Recently a friend from the Bay Area of California made an interesting observation after reading "E" is for English.

"It is conservative in parts, but it's both innovative and progressive," the woman described.

She professed to be a "liberal Democrat." Amazingly, she was not the least bit offended by the insistence that a literacy test was the key to attaining 100% literacy in America. She added that "it neither criticized or praised Barack Obama." The book title "insinuated that it was anti-Obama, but it wasn't."

 She admitted liking the immigration proposal's path to citizenship and agreed that "accelerated English assimilation" was necessary for all.

Our conversation moved first to global warming, then to welfare. I realized that this intelligent women, the holder of two advance degrees, lacked depth on both subjects.

She was stunned to learn the existence of fern fossils in Siberian museums and the "mini-ice age" of the mid-eighteenth century. The heat wave of 1936 that set records in the United States was a surprise. She was utterly shocked when I informed her that "one-third" of all welfare recipients resided in her home state!

I came away with the impression that this person was taken aback by sheer facts suddenly brought to her attention. It was like being told that there "were only Magnolia trees in Mississippi," later learning that there were also Pines, Oaks, Hickories and Dogwoods.

 The subject turned to Obamacare. She admitted that it would likely be "continuously amended." When I suggested that we might ultimately be looking at "nullification" by several states, she questioned, "do you think people feel that strongly about it?"

In short, this well intentioned person had taken the liberal line as gospel. However, when the facts were presented, she was more surprised than offended.

Perhaps I disarmed her when I suggested that "California is too nice of a place to have the all of the countries' career welfare recipients congregating there."

"Because the climate is mild, people naturally find it easier to survive." she proffered. Then she admitted that even the liberal minded Governor, Jerry Brown had recently proposed stop gap measures designed to assist the chronically unemployed return to the work force.

"Many are volunteering for the training. But, upon conclusion of the training, they have difficulty finding suitable positions," she mused.

In other words, it's more profitable to stay on the welfare rolls than accept a ten- dollar per hour job!

 She then inquired, "how would you  fix the healthcare system?"

Referencing a proposal that was seen on a previous Eagles for America post, I detailed the establishment of a catastrophic pool that would be available to everyone. In amazement, she  explained, "Politicians on both sides refuse to sit down and find a solution that benefits the people. It's about "which hand" is feeding them."

Shaking her head, she surmised, "I consider myself a liberal. You consider yourself a conservative. But, we are close on many issues. How could that be? You are either more liberal or I more conservative than originally thought!"

What is the definition of liberal? What is the definition of conservative.It depends on the individual perception.

In Washington, both sides of the aisle have come to one general agreement: "Government is better centralized; the bigger the better." Never mind the constitution! Or, as Nancy Pelosi exclaimed, "are you kidding?

Doesn't the old Chinese proverb state, "divide and conquer?" Our political leaders have mastered the art. By keeping our people at arms length and pitting them against each other, they have completely distracted them from the real issue at hand: "the continuing consolidation of power in Washington, D.C.."

Is the constitution our benchmark for defining conservatism? It's supposed to be. The more strict the interpretation, the more conservative. The less strict, the more liberal. It is really very simple.

A "strict constructionist" would use "Obama care" as a prime example of "liberal" or "loose construction." After all, there is nothing in the constitution that even hints about health care  being handled at the national level! But, you could say the same about the Department of Homeland Security. Or, a program like "no child left behind." Or, for that matter, the Department of Education! 

In our attempt to label our opponents, we have allowed our political leaders to maintain the century old argument referenced on a previous, Eagles for America post. The Bolsheviks and Trotskyites had numerous disagreements. But they were in total agreement on the need for a large central government that exercised maximum control over the population.

A lot of self-described "liberals" are actually conservatives in the sense that they want more individual freedoms. They are not ready to become "wards of the state' in the Stalinist tradition. Nor, do they want to lean on big brother for the important things, as Trotsky implied.

There are those who claim that they are "conservatives."  Then they describe historic support for U.S. involvement in  Viet Nam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  They likewise had no problem with the increase monitoring and surveillance of Americans by Federal Agencies. Does "KGB" sound familiar? How about "exporting the revolution?"

The true standard of conservatism amounts to "how literal" the constitution is interpreted. Those subscribers will support Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "when people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty." Nancy Pelosi would probably suggest that Jefferson was "kidding."

To denounce both Stalin and Trotsky is easy . At the same time, most politicians welcome the notion that "a massive central government"  is the key to any and all ailments; the solution to all perceived problems.

It comes down to a basic contradiction. True conservatives are constitutionalists, which translates to a more defined acknowledgement of the 10th amendment. Amazingly, many self professed liberals are more in line with Libertarians than Democrats. This is due to their lust for greater individual freedoms. 

When we draw these distinctions the battle line magically changes.