We Are In A Class War Already Why Don’t People Admit It?

1 Comment


 The opening shot of the class war was fired on January 20, 1981 at 12:00 noon when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States.

Before we go into a discussion of this war, we need to take a brief look at its first commander-in-chief, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was born in humble beginnings in Dixon, Illinois and he later became a sports announcer, actor, labor leader and later politician and Governor of California and President of the United States.

Reagan was a Democrat until 1962 and gave a rousing speech for Senator Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention.  This was the door that opened him up to the Governorship of California and later, the Presidency.

Ronald Reagan loved to tout his blue collar roots and he was always happy to tell people that he was the only President who was a former labor leader. 

While it is true that he was President of the Screen Actors Guild from 1947 to 1952 and then again from 1959 to 1960; he is probably one of the few if any major labor leaders who reported his own guild members to the government for alleged “un-American “activities.

You see Ronald Reagan was a fervent diehard anti-Communist.  He was so paranoid of a Communist take over in the United States that he saw red behind every rock and door in the U.S.  Countless lives and careers were altered or destroyed due to his paranoia.

This war started on January 20, 1981 when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States.

The landmark economic theory of the Reagan Administration was what was to be known as Reaganomics.  Reaganomics was based on four main principles:  1. reduce growth of government spending.  2.  Reduce income tax and capital gains tax.  3.  Reduce government regulation.  4.  Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Now I am no economist by a long shot.  But to me at least three of these precepts look like you are giving a blank check to the wealthy and the corporate interests. 

When Reagan took office the tax rate on the top income bracket was 70%.  When he left office in 1989, it was 28%

To top off all of that the luxury tax was eliminated as well as the capital gains tax.  Another knife in the back of the economy was the fact that while revenues were significantly reduced during the Reagan years, defense spending significantly were increased as well.

Because of all this the national debt increased substantionally.  It rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during the Reagan years.

The entire theory of Reaganomics is flawed.  During the FDR’s years Will Rogers coined a phrase for this type of economic philosophy.  He called it “The Trickle Down Theory.” The thought being that if the rich have more money, the wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

George HW Bush had a better term for it.  During the 1980 Republican Presidential Primary he called it “Voodoo Economics.” I think that this is an excellent two word assessment of the entire Reagan economic policy.  It is unfortunate that Reagan’s policies were carried on by his successors including Mr. Bush.

The next commander-in-chief of the elitist class was George HW Bush.  Bush was a descendant of a blue blood family from New England and his Bush and Pierce relations have been in the American elitist class dating back to colonial times.

He ran for President dedicated to not raising taxes and to reduce the deficit that has significantly increased during the Reagan Administration of which he was a ranking member of.

Bush believed that the best way to reduce the deficit was to reduce spending.  This put him into an ideological war with the Democratic controlled Congress who believed that the best way was to raise taxes.

During the 1988 campaign Bush pledged to never raise taxes.  “Read my lips, no new taxes” was his battle cry which would eventually come back to haunt him.

Bush accepted a deal from the Democrats in Congress that would raise revenues with spending cuts which would reduce the deficit by $500 billion in the next five years.

Feeling betrayed, the Republicans in Congress along with some conservative Democrats forced the defeat of the compromise.  This forced Bush to accept a Democratic proposal that allowed for higher taxes and increased spending.  Somehow this passed and Bush signed it which he admitted later was a mistake because the elitist Republicans in Congress helped to have his popularity decrease nation wide.

In 1991, we entered an illegal war against Iraq.  Bush was able to get Congressional approval for this war and along with the U.N., we invaded Kuwait and pushed Iraqi forces back and forced them to surrender.

The idea was put out that this was a war to preserve freedom in democracy but in actuality it was a war to preserve the flow of oil to the west, primarily the United States.  It was later found out that the Bush family had long standing ties with the Saudi royal family and this was another motivation for the war against Iraq.

In the spring-summer of 1992, the U.S. entered into a deep recession.  Congress passed a bill extending unemployment compensation to the long term unemployed.  Bush refused to sign the bill stating that it wasn’t necessary, that there was no need for it.  This proved that his blue blood had him so far out of reality that he didn’t understand what the average American was going through.  This was further demonstrated during the election when George HW Bush proved that he didn’t even know how to shop for groceries and he couldn’t even try to guess what the average cost of a normal everyday grocery item would cost.

The last blue blooded elitist commander-in-chief that I am going to discuss is George W Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, the son of former President George HW Bush.

He ran for election in 2000 with one of the dirtiest below the belt campaigns in recent memory.  I’m not even going to discuss the issue that he was put in office illegally.  That is for another time.  Suffice it to say that he was placed into office by a majority of lifetime appointed court justices who demonstrated once again that a democratically elected candidate can still be denied his rightful office.

George W Bush has been classified as a “neoconservative.” That term means simply that focuses on foreign policy.  It also believes that it is necessary and proper to use American economic and military power to bring democracy and freedom to other countries.  George W Bush is a prime example of that term as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven.

The hallmark of the bush Administration was a series of tax reduction bills commonly called “the Bush Tax Cuts.” These measures while providing some minute relief to the middle and lower classes provided substantial tax cuts to corporations and the upper income brackets.

Supporters of these cuts stated that they would spur economic growth.  Studies have indicated that growth never happened, just another reason why “Voodoo Economics” does not work nor will it ever work.  Many economists have stated that these tax cuts were merely a redistribution of wealth shifting the burden away from the rich and increasing the burden to the middle and lower classes.  It’s like Marie Antoinette has returned, “let them eat bread!”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending these tax cuts for 10 years would increase the deficit by $3.5 trillion.

Couple that with the wars the President Bush started.  We are in the middle of two overseas wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.  These wars are costing the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars per day.  As we have seen already, it is costing the middle and lower classes, not the upper classes.  They have no financial responsibility because they mostly pay little if any taxes.

George W. Bush was a complete disaster as President.  Because of his fiscal policies and his illegal foreign interventions he turned a budget surplus left over from the Clinton Administration into the largest budget deficits in American history.  It’s no wonder that you rarely see him in public and he is afraid to travel overseas.  Many countries want to try him as a war criminal and I for one hope that they get the opportunity.

Go back and look at the administrations of each of these three Presidents.  There is no way that any logical person can claim that there is no class war going on.  This is war between the upper and lower classes, between the rich and the poor.

Since the administration of Ronald Reagan, there has been no middle class.  His economic policies virtually destroyed that group.  Now all that is left is the working class and the elite.  That’s it, and believe me you had better start fighting for what you believe in or there will be nothing left to fight for.

Some people claim that it was Reagan’s increasing of defense spending and the fears of the Soviet Union of our “Star Wars” plan that caused Communism to fall.  That is simply not true.  Communism fell in Eastern Europe for one reason and one reason only.  People want freedom and economic independence.  People want to be able to have a life, provide for their family and see their children have a better life than they did.  These are all basic human rights that every human being on this planet should have.

Take a look at what is going on in the world right at this moment.  Look at Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Jordan.  What is happening there?   People are fighting for their freedom from oppressive governments that are unresponsive to them.  People like Gadiffy, Mubarek and Saleh.  Mubarek is gone.  Gadiffy and Saleh are not gone yet but it will probably be soon.  Even Saudi Arabia is attempting to begin reforms along with Jordan because they see the writing on the wall.

The people of the United States better wake up and realize that this is total war, there will be no prisoners.  The government of the United States, especially the elitist, racist Republican Party had better wake up too and hear what the people want instead of some heartless corporation.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitutions reads, “We The People…..” not we the über rich and corporations.  Wake up America, your future depends on it!!!

 

Advertisements

Birth Certificate, What’s The Big Deal?

1 Comment

Birth Certificate, What’s The Big Deal?

 

For the longest time there has been talk that the President of the United States is not constitutionally qualified to be President of the United State wholly because he was not born in this country and that his Hawaiian birth certificate is not proper because it is not the “long form.”

Let’s take some time and examine exactly what the constitutional requirements are for being President of the United States.

Let’s now turn to the U.S. Constitution.  Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 reads as follows:    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a birth certificate is required?  Do you really think that Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy had to produce a birth certificate?  I highly doubt it.

It is my contention that this entire “birth certificate” issue is nothing more than racism.  Donald Trump, Mitt Romney and members of the Tea Party movement as well as many Republicans hate President Barack Obama for one reason and one reason alone.  That reason is this:  he is black.  They refuse to look past the color of his skin.

They don’t see a highly intelligent man with compassion and a pure desire to help people.  What they see is a black man who took the Presidency from a white man.

They say that blacks elected President Obama.  While it is true that many black people voted for Barack Obama, many white people did too as well as Asians and Hispanics.  To claim that he is President of only the blacks is a foolish and an unintelligent statement to make.

They also contend that the President was born in Kenya.  Even if he was it wouldn’t matter one little bit.  His mother was an American born in Kansas.  He would be a natural born citizen anyway.

During the 2008 Presidential Election we had two main candidates, Barack Obama, born in Hawaii and John McCain born in Panama.  Excuse me?  What did you say?  Panama?

Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, the son of an American Naval officer, John McCain, Jr.

Now don’t you find it kind of strange that this wasn’t mentioned except as a footnote in the election?  Where were the demonstrators stating that Senator McCain wasn’t a citizen but they were continually hammering then Senator Obama about his citizenship?

The answer is plain and simple to me.  They are racists.  The Republican Party is filled with racists from top to bottom.

There is no provision in the Constitution or in any statue that I am aware of that demands that a candidate has to produce a birth certificate.  Don’t you think that the Democratic Party vetted its presidential candidates before the primary season to see if they are eligible?  Of course they did.  There is no way that the Party power brokers and money people are going to throw money away by supporting an unqualified candidate, especially considering how expensive modern elections are.

This is my assertion.  If you hate the President, fine.  If you hate his policies, fine.  If you are a racist, that’s okay too; even though many people don’t approve of racism.  Just be adult enough to admit it.

President Barack Obama is qualified to be the President of the United States.  Just because you hate him doesn’t make him unqualified.

Republicans and Tea Party members need to learn their history and they especially need to learn the U.S. Constitution.  They should carry it with them or if that is impractable maybe they should have it tattooed on their bodies!

Americans need to wake up and face the problems that are out there today.  Stop protesting and complaining about trite things that have no bearing on anything.

We need to unite as a people and work together otherwise our great country will decline even more and it may even cease to exist.  To quote President Abraham Lincoln, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

 

 

States Rights

1 Comment

States Rights

 

There has been a lot of talk recently on states rights.  The Republican-Tea Party (RTP) constantly invokes the term and especially since we are at the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the American Civil War I thought that maybe it was a good time to examine this particular issue.

I think that before we even go into the discussion of states rights we should examine what the US Constitution actually states about these rights.

The parts of the Constitution that we are going to examine are the following:  The Supremacy Clause, The Necessary And Proper Clause and The Tenth Amendment.

After we examine these clauses we will dig into the issue of “states rights”.

The Supremacy Clause is Article VI Clause 2 and reads as follows:  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This clause establishes the US Constitution, federal statutes and US treaties as the supreme law of the land.  All state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and any state law or provision in any state constitution.

There have been a number of Supreme Court decisions to reaffirm this clause through the years.  In 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States.  The Court ruled that this tax was unconstitutional because it made a state statue supreme over federal statutes therefore violating the Supremacy Clause.

In 1859, in Ableman v. Booth, the Supreme Court stated that state courts cannot issue rulings the contradict federal courts.  The Court cited the Supremacy Clause and overturned a decision made by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

In 1958, in Cooper v. Aaron, the Court rejected repeated attempts of the state of Arkansas’ attempts to nullify a previous decision of the Supreme Court on desegregation (Brown v. Board of Education).  Arkansas using a flawed states rights theory had attempted to bypass the Supreme Court by passing these laws.  The Supreme Court declared this to be unconstitutional via the Supremacy Clause.

In 1982, in Edgar v. Mite Corporation, the Court ruled that “A state statue is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statue.”

Furthermore a state law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause if one or both of these conditions exist.”1.  Compliance with both Federal and State laws is impossible and or 2.  State laws stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

The Necessary and proper Clause is from Article I Section 8 Clause 18 and reads as follows:  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Basically this clause states that the Congress of the United States has the authority to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying out their powers which have previously been stated in the Constitution.

As with The Supremacy Clause the case of McCulloch v, Maryland is used as precedence.  Not only did this case state that Federal law is the supreme law of the land but it also asserts that the Congress has the right to pass all laws that are necessary and proper as well.

The final section of the Constitution that we are going to examine is the Tenth Amendment.  It reads as follows:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is the part of the Constitution that most states righters cling to.  They believe that this amendment adds fuel to their claim that the rights of the states are supreme.  This is simply not true.

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision in the Articles of Confederation that guaranteed states to sovereignty, freedom and independence.

After the Constitution was ratified, some people wanted to add a similar amendment to the Constitution limiting powers of the federal government to “expressly” delegated thus denying the federal government “implied powers.”

However, the words “expressly” did not appear in the Tenth Amendment therefore the amendment did not reject the implied powers allowed by the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The term states rights has reared its head a number of times since the beginning of our country.

The first instance was after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798.  At that time we were in the middle of a quazi war with France.

The acts were actually a series of bills that were intended to address the issue of enemy aliens and also to address the issue of handling seditious acts that were interpreted to weaken the federal government by people who wrote articles that criticized the federal government.

Vice-President Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed these acts and even came out to state that he felt that they were unconstitutional.  They were a hotbed of debate during the elections of 1798 and 1800.  They were very unpopular and they are probably the main reason that John Adams was not re elected in 1800.

Jefferson and James Madison even went far enough to state in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that these acts violated states rights.  “Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party….each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

As lofty as these resolutions were, the government under the Supremacy Clause could write this type of law.

The laws were never declared unconstitutional because they were never brought in front of the Supreme Court.  If they had, I am sure that they would have been declared unconstitutional.

States rights came up again during the War of 1812.  The British naval blockade was severely damaging the shipping interests in New England and at the Hartford Convention the New England states started discussing secession from the Union but nothing like that happened.

One continued problem that seemed to plague the Union from around 1820 through the Civil War was the issue of tariffs.

The north and the south had two very diverse types of economies.  The north was industrial and the south was agricultural.  They depended on imports from Europe or from industry in the north.  The south had very few established industries and was almost totally dependant on outside sources for industrial implements.

In 1828 Congress passed a series of protective tariffs to benefit trade in the north but hurt the south.

Throughout the south these were several protests to these tariffs.

On November 24, 1832, South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification declaring the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the boundaries of South Carolina.

This unconstitutional ordinance set up an immediate constitutional crisis.  On December 10, 1843, President Andrew Jackson sent a flotilla of ships and threatened to send ground troops to South Carolina to enforce the tariffs.  Faced with a military confrontation, South Carolina backed down.

The biggest dispute over states rights have to be over slavery and the Civil War.

Actually, states rights have been used by both pro slavery and anti slavery proponents.

The pro slavery faction believed that slaves were property and they and the state had the right to protect their property no matter where they were.  In other words, if they were in a free state their slave was still considered their property and they were entitled to recover and protect their property.

The anti slavery faction believed that their state rights were violated by The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 which gave slave owners the right to cross state lines and enter a free state to attempt to recover runaway slaves.

Now if you are a supporter of states rights, which position do you take?  I guess that it all depends on which side of the issue you are on.

My assertion is this.  Look at the evidence.  States rights were claimed by both sides, north and south.  What is the underlying issue here?  The answer is simple.  It’s slavery.  Slavery was the primary issue of the Civil War.  States rights was merely a side issue.

Furthermore, the Constitution of The United State states implicitly that Federal law is the supreme law of the land.  States rights is a non issue and that term has been used since the Civil War era up until today to talk about the segregation of African Americans from the American way of life.

I contend that “states rights” is merely a euphemism for Apartheid, American version.  Anyone who claims states rights issues for the Civil War or any piece of social legislation is in my mind a racist.  If you hold to the states rights myth you are no better than George Wallace in my opinion!

 

The Real Motive of our Founding Fathers

Leave a comment

There is a common misconception out there that is being perpetrated by the Republican-Tea Party that the 13 original colonies rebelled against the Kingdom of Great Britain due to some lofty principle as the right of the people to determine their government instead of a monarch who claimed “Divine Right.”  In my opinion this is a misconception that needs to be brought out into the open.

They claim that the Founding Fathers wanted independence so that the colonists could rule themselves as was there right.  This is not correct and there is ample evidence out there to prove that.

It is my assertion that the Founding Fathers were elitists mostly from either the landed gentry or from the merchant class and they incited a revolution in order to protect their livelihoods because the policies of the British Government were restricting their income.

First, let’s take a look at who exactly the Founding Fathers are.  It is generally accepted that there are seven primary Founding Fathers.  They are:  Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. There are others associated with these gentleman but these in my view were the primary Founding Fathers.

Let’s look at each one of them individually.  The first one is Benjamin Franklin.  Mr. Franklin was born in Boston, Massachusetts on January 17, 1706.  He was a son of a soap maker and a candle maker.

Although he was born to a working class family he later became a very wealthy publisher and author.  He founded “Poor Richards Almanack” as well as the publisher of the “Philadelphia Gazette.”

Franklin’s main objective to the British Government was a result of the Stamp Act.  This act required that a stamp was placed on all official documents as well as books and newspapers.  You had to pay a tax in order to get the stamp affixed to any documents.  Now bear in mind Mr. Franklin had definite republican tendencies due to his Puritan upbringing but the Stamp Act was his main motivation for wanting independence.

The second Founding Father was George Washington.  Mr. Washington was born on February 22, 1732 in Westmoreland Co., Virginia.  He was born to a family of planters and his family was one of the founding families of the Colony of Virginia and he was an established member of the Church of England and a pillar of the community.

Washington was a member of the Virginia militia and his invasion of Ft. Duquesne before war was declared with France was probably one of the precipitators of the war.

Throughout the French and Indian War, Washington, as a colonel was often treated poorly by British officers of all ranks and this may have been the start of his republican leanings.

After the war, the British Parliament passed a series of revenue (taxes) acts to help pay for the war.  Many of these taxes affected Washington’s plantation and this might have been what pushed him over the edge to support the colonists in independence.

The third Founding Father was John Adams.  Mr. Adams was born on October 30, 1735 in Braintree, Massachusetts.  He was a fifth generation descendant of one of the founding families of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  His father was a Puritan deacon and his family was one of the established families of Boston.

Even before the Revolution he was a prominent lawyer and public figure.  He was vilified by the public and especially by his second cousin, Samuel Adams for defending the British soldiers who fired on the crowd at the Boston Massacre causing the death of Crispus Atticus.  Six soldiers were acquitted and the two that fired into the crowd were convicted of manslaughter.

What brought Adams into the revolutionary fray was in 1772 when Governor Hutchinson informed the Massachusetts legislature that his salary and the salaries of the colonial judges would be paid by the King from collected duties.

Adams was persuaded to argue that this was a violation of the Charter granted by King James I and that payment by collected duties on the order of the British Parliament was a violation of that charter and it left the colonists no other alternative then to declare themselves independent.

The entire involvement on Adam’s part had nothing to do with “Divine Right” or republicanism, but on salaries.  Hardly on lofty principles it would seem.

The fourth Founding Father was Thomas Jefferson.  Mr. Jefferson was born on April 13, 1747 in Shadwell, Virginia, the son of a prominent planter.  Like George Washington, Jefferson came from the landed gentry, but unlike Washington, Jefferson did not join the military.  He was a well educated lawyer and politician as well as a prolific writer.

He was probably influenced partially because the gentry were economically affected by the tax policies of the British Parliament.

The fifth Founding Father was John Jay.  Mr. Jay was born on December 12, 1745 in New York, New York.  He was the son of wealthy merchants.

John Jay was a lawyer and had an established law practice with Robert Livingston.

He was in the First Committee of Correspondence of New York in 1774.  He represented the conservative faction who was interested in protecting property rights of the affluent.  This was hardy a lofty principle of republicanism.

The sixth Founding Father was James Madison.  Mr. Madison was born on March 16, 1751 in Port Conway, Virginia.  He was the son of a prominent plantation owner.  Their primary crop was tobacco and after Madison inherited the plantation from his father, he expanded it to make it the largest plantation of any type in Orange County, Virginia.

Madison was also an attorney and was considered a protégé of Thomas Jefferson.

As with most planters and merchants the revenue acts passed by the British Parliament directly affected their livelihoods.

The seventh and final Founding Father that we are going to discuss is Alexander Hamilton.  Mr. Hamilton was born on January 11, 1755 or 1757 in Nevis, Caribbean.  He was the only Founding Father born outside of the Thirteen Colonies.

He was the illegitimate child of a James Hamilton who abandoned him and his mother at an early age.

Hamilton is probably the only Founding Father who was born from humble beginnings.  He was denied membership in the Church of England because his parents were not married and this may have been the beginning of his anti-British sentiments.

He was adopted into a family of merchants and once again he may have been influenced by the restrictions that the British Government put on their business via the revenue acts.

The popular belief perpetrated by the RTP is that the Founding Fathers had all these lofty principles as far as founding our country.  In my view this is a misinterpretation of history.  I assert that this country was founded on money and wealth.  The corporate influences that permeate our government today are the natural evolution of the landed gentry and merchant class of the Eighteenth Century.

The Founding Fathers did not trust the working class or the rabble as they used to call it.  Why do you think that we have the Electoral College?

Now, I am not asserting that money was the only motivation.  The American Age of Enlightenment had a lot to do with it as well as the writings of Locke and Rousseau.

What I am asserting is this.  Money was the initial piece of ammunition.  If the Parliament had not passed these revenue laws and if George III hadn’t taken such a principled hard lined stance on this we would probably still be flying the Union Jack over what is now the United States.