Excluded Middle by Michael Cochrane

The Constitution of the United States is such a fundamental and influential document that it is completely understandable that it would be the center of attention and controversy with respect to the nature of what we believe to be true and significant as a people. As such, the Constitution is subject to a scrutiny that suggests that its propositions and proscriptions are open to interpretation.

Over the last two centuries, there has arisen a concept of political ideology that appears to dispose itself along a spectrum from extreme to extreme – extreme right (facism) to extreme left (communism). Well meaning people from both “extremes” have attempted to make their case for the truth of their position. The so-called “moderate” individual might “split the difference”, and find a middle position that seems to be reasonable and truthful at the same time.

Thus, a common response to the daily back and forth of views on the left and the right is to think that the “Truth” lies somewhere in the “reasonable” middle; the centrist viewpoint. Such a position is considered unassailable and more than likely where the real answers to problems lie. That mode of thinking may pass the test of political correctness, but it doesn’t pass the test of philosophical scrutiny.

The Truth lies where it is – objectively – regardless of where we are positioned on the spectrum of political or ideological views. I’m reminded of the concept of statistical sampling: The mean of the population is a parameter one can never know exactly, but it is “true”. We take a random sample of that population and derive the statistic, the sample mean, which is an estimate of the “true” population mean. From there we can build a 95% confidence interval for the location of this true value. But this interval may or may not enclose the true population parameter. All this tells us is that if we were to construct 100 intervals from 100 random samples, that 95 of them would enclose the “true” population mean. It’s possible (with a 5% chance) that we’re wrong.

Therefore a search for Truth should not be driven to the center from the “extremes”; it should be undertaken objectively, without regard for what society deems far right or left. The Founders, in their wisdom, created a document that attempted to derive a basic set of laws for the nation based on the objectively true principles of liberty and justice as authored by God. But, since it is a creature of man, the Constitution is not perfect. So it allows for amendment. Even the Declaration suggests that a free people reserve the right to overthrow a government destructive of those basic God given rights and start over.

The notion of a “living” Constitution suggests to me that it is possible to ascribe more or less (or different) power and authority to the words of the document based on the exigencies of a particular societal problem. To return to my statistics analogy, this is like constructing a 100% confidence interval: we fit the “Truth” to a space between the extremes we have settled on. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as a 100% confidence interval (unless, of course, your “sample” is the entire population, in which case you would *know* the truth because you had perfect information).

Truth exists. It may actually lie outside the boundaries with which human beings have constrained it. The truly virtuous person will pursue it wherever it may lead, and will not be constrained by boundaries imposed by a fickle society.

Copyright 2010 by Michael Cochrane.  Used with permission.  All rights reserved

Of Free Speech, Illegal Immigration and Border Wars

As all of my friends, relatives and acquaintances know, I have just returned from Bangkok, Thailand where I have been since January prepping and shooting a film called “Elephant White” with Djimon Hounsou and Kevin Bacon. On the whole, the experience was rewarding. Working with Prachya Pinkaew, the internationally acclaimed Director was both a treat and a learning experience. I know it will continue as such during the post-production period.

However, while in Thailand, I also was a student: A student of free speech and the right of assembly and tolerance. Three items that I used to believe we had here in America. Thailand, the country were a military coup took over control of the government a few years ago is now on the verge of a civil war. Even though it is a military run country, its people have more freedom of expression than we have here in the United States thanks to the PC movement, the ACLU and our friends on the Far Left.

The political situation in Thailand can be considered fragile at best. The two political parties are on the verge of what may be a violent and bloody civil war. When I left there about ten days ago, the Red Shirt Party had taken control of downtown Bangkok and, for all intents and purposes, had occupied it. The party in control, The Yellow Shirts, has allowed this to happen.

What started as a peaceful protest against the government is on the verge of becoming violent. Already, there have been minor skirmishes in which guns have been fired, grenades have been launched and a small group of people on both sides have been killed.

However, for the most part, the military and local police have exercised restraint and did not permit the situation to get out of control. They were ready to defend the populace by being fully armed and patrolling the streets, but they did not do anything to take away the rights of the protestors. Freedom of Speech and Assembly were respected by both sides.

Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in the United States. The Far Left, as stated in some of my prior articles, has been doing everything in its power to take away these freedoms in our country. In fact, Nancy Pelosi has actually called the Tea Party protestors the equivalent of Nazis. She has stated that she would like them to cease from all activities and simply does not want to give them the right to protest.

The same also seems to be true of a large portion of our country in response to the Arizona Immigration Law. In fact, the City of Los Angeles and other organizations are calling for a boycott of Arizona in response instead of recognizing that Arizona has a right to protect itself if the Federal Government refuses to do such. Arizona is merely exercising its Tenth Amendment Rights.

A careful reading of the Arizona Law shows that it is nothing more than a state codification of the current federal law; all legal immigrants and legal non-immigrants are required to show proof of their right to be in the country if requested by proper authorities. The law is not fascist nor a return to Nazi Germany as has been suggested by those who oppose it. And, it is not an affront on the Hispanic Community. It is simply an affront on illegal aliens. It is an affront on those who have no right to be in the United States, whether they be Hispanic, Eastern European or Asian. I am the grandchild of immigrants. My grandparents came through Ellis Island at the turn of the last century. They followed the law and became American in the proper manner. They did not hold onto the Old Country. In fact, my parents barely spoke any Italian at all. They were told to become American. They were no longer Italian.

Arizona is dealing with a problem that must be dealt with. In fact, the immigration statute is so popular that a number of other states, including Texas and Michigan, that’s right liberal Michigan, are considering similar statutes. A poll released today shows that 64% of the population approves the law.

The illegal immigration situation in Arizona and other states on the Border has reached crisis proportions. Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen explains the law and her reason for supporting it in her commentary on why she voted for the statute. You can find a full text of her commentary at: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/. In that article, she explains the problems on the Border; the uncontrollable influx of illegals and, drug traffickers using the border in Arizona as the principle means of bringing drugs into the United States.

The facts are clear. Illegal immigrants are filling up both state and federal prisons; they are a drain on federal and state welfare; and, they are a drain on our education system. They are responsible for a large portion of the murders and other felonies throughout the country. In fact, the situation on the Arizona Border has gotten so bad that it can almost be considered a war zone. People are being murdered on both sides of the border daily. That’s right, daily. The Federal government is doing nothing to stop the situation and would grant illegals amnesty if permitted. The states must take the matter into their own hands. They are going bankrupt and must do whatever is necessary and legal to protect their citizens and budgets.

You may wonder why the Federal Government is not doing anything to curb the tide of illegal immigration. The answered is simple. The party in power sees illegal immigrants as a potential voting block that would support them. If the Democratic Party cannot get votes from naturally born and/or naturalized citizens, then it will get them from wherever it can, especially in Arizona and Texas which lean heavily to the right. Imagine giving illegal immigrants the right to vote in these two states. It could be just enough to tip them to the left.

Cinco de Mayo was celebrated a few days ago. This is a national holiday in Mexico. In some states with large Mexican populations including Arizona and California, it is becoming a day of celebration too. A group of students in a Southern California High School decided that they were going to celebrate America on Cinco de Mayo by wearing shirts with the American Flag on them. The administrators in the school decided that this was inappropriate behavior and demanded that the students change their shirts or turn them inside out. It must have been the administration’s viewpoint that the American Flag should not be displayed on Cinco de Mayo.

The students were then subjected to discipline by the school board when they refused to remove their shirts. When the parents of these students found out what was happening, they went to Fox News with the story. Fox News chose to air it. It was later picked up by both NBC, CBS and @ yahoo. In my opinion, the school district is clearly violating these students Right to Assembly and Free Speech. To date, the school district has not apologized for its actions. However, they have ceased the disciplinary proceedings against the students.

Since when did it become bad to love the United States? Since when did it become in bad taste to be a dissenter? Don’t the Federalist Papers and the Equal Protection Clause state that protection of the minority is one of the guarantees of the Constitution? Apparently, in this school district the non-Mexicans are the minority and they are being disciplined for exercising their Constitutional Rights and showing love for their country.

In similar story, a grammar school student in another part of the country was stopped from drawing an American Flag with the words God Bless America on it by her teacher. The teacher felt that this drawing was inappropriate content. I guess the teacher felt that God shouldn’t bless America or that the American Flag, a symbol that millions have fought and died for, was not a proper art project for a student at the elementary school level.

It appears that the Administrators in the Southern California school district and the grammar school teacher have less tolerance than the military controlled government and people of Thailand. This also appears to be unfortunately true for most of the left leaning people in this country, including our current President. We all need to remember this in November when we cast our votes to take our country back.

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.

Nullification and Federalism

Occasionally, I like to write an article historically based and not necessarily based upon events of the day. However, the issues addressed in this article are not just historical. The issue of Nullification and its effects on the United States are far reaching and in reality were probably the cause of the Civil War. There is a strong movement in the country now based upon Nullification and The Tenth Amendment. The Tea Party movement and Ron Paul are just a small fraction of the groups which are actively supporting these theories and principles.

To understand Nullification, one must first have a basic understanding of Federalism. The United States is a Federalist country. It has always been so from the beginning. A Federalist country is a group of smaller units, in this case States, which are joined together as a union for the common good. In the case of the United States, Federalism comes from historical roots and is embodied in the Constitution. Another example of a Federalist country is the Federal Republic of Germany. Mexico has states but is not truly Federalist in that all the power is concentrated within the Central Government.

Nullification is based on the principle that the Constitution was ratified by the States not the people. James Madison pointed out that each state was ratifying the Constitution for itself, whereas had it been a truly national endeavor, a binding ratification vote would have been taken among the American people as a whole. Thus, it is the States which control the government and not the people. And, it is the people which, in turn, control the individual States.

So, the Framers of the Constitution understood that they were creating a Federal Government in which the States had ultimate control and the Central Government had limited powers set forth in the Constitution, specifically in Article 1, Section 8. Further evidence of this is found in the Tenth Amendment which clearly states that:

“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.”

However, since the drafting and ratifying of The Constitution, the powers of the States have gradually dwindled. The “Alien and Sedition” Acts and the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were some of the first major battlefields involving the power of the Central Government. In both cases, the Central Government won. In the case of the Tariffs, South Carolina nullified the laws and later threatened to secede from the union. A compromise was reached which lowered the tariff thereby ending the crisis before it came to a head.

Unfortunately, this was not the case over the issue of Slavery. From the Missouri Compromise until the election of Abraham Lincoln, the issue of States’ sovereignty came up many times on this issue alone. Prior to the start of Secession in 1860 and the Civil War, many battles were fought in Congress over whether the individual states had the right to be slave or free.

The issue was quite simple. Could a state enter the union based upon its own decision whether it wanted to be slave or free? The South argued that since slavery was guaranteed by the Constitution, any state applying for admission to the Union had the right to declare its choice on this issue. The Northern Abolitionists felt the Federal Government had the right to limit slavery and to eliminate slavery in the Southern states which practiced it. The Republican Party of the time was split on the issue, but mostly believed that Slavery should not cease in the States where it already existed, but could be limited by Federal authority in new states applying for admission.

The whole issue came to a head in 1860 when the initial Southern States seceded from the Union stating that since they had volunteered to join the union, they could also voluntarily secede. We all know the ultimate result: The bloodiest war in the history of the United States. Over 600,000 American lost their lives over this issue.

Eventually, the North won and the South was forced to accept that the Central Government had the power to end slavery and enforce the solidarity of the union. The Tenth Amendment’s claim to power and threats of Nullification and Secession ended. However, it should be noted, that even though the North was victorious, slavery could not have ended and slaves did not become citizens, nor have the right to vote until the passage of the Thirteenth, through Fifteenth Amendments.

States’ rights have dwindled ever since. Most legal precedent for the growth and power of the Central Government come from the clause in Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution which states Congress shall have to power to regulate Interstate Commerce. This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give Congress the power to do practically anything provided it affects Interstate Commerce. In fact, the Interstate Commerce Clause is the main reason being used to counter Tenth Amendment arguments on the pending Health Care Legislation.

The theory of Nullification goes back a long way. The Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1798, contained the following which has often been cited as a justification for both nullification and secession:

“ … that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it… “

Now, you may ask, why am I making such a big deal about Nullification? It should be clear. There is a strong minority in the country who believe Nullification should be permitted by the States in regards to the Health Care bill and much other unpopular legislation being proposed by the Obama Administration.

One of the most recent examples of the use of Nullification is Montana’s Nullification of the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Montana Legislature Nullified the law under the theory that the Act was unconstitutional and an improper use of Federal Power. Implicit in the argument was The Tenth Amendment.

Further issues of Nullification are coming up now in many states regarding the medical use of marijuana and, in some instances, the legality of recreational use of marijuana. Federal Agents are using Federal Laws against marijuana to arrest proprietors and users under these state statutes, but thus far, no test case has gone far enough for the Nullification and Tenth Amendment arguments to be scrutinized and ruled upon.

However, that day is coming and will probably come soon; especially if the Obama Administration gets its way and continues to increase the power of the Federal Government. If the Health Care bill passes and 1/6 of the US Economy comes under Central Government control, I am sure that some States will be forced by their citizenry to consider Nullification in the same manner that Congress is considering the unconstitutional use of Reconciliation to pass the bill.

The only question really left is whether the use of Nullification is good or bad. People who believe in the Tenth Amendment, of which I am one, feel that Nullification is good. However, it should be used sparingly and only when there is a strong belief that the Act of Congress and/or the Administration are beyond the powers permitted them by the Constitution.

If this power is used too often, there are many potential ramifications. As written in a prior Article, the Texas Governor has already threatened secession. This is not good. We are the United States of America and we must be united forever. However, when the Federal Government goes beyond its Constitutional powers, then Nullification is the answer and the right comes from The Tenth Amendment and the Constitution itself.

For further information about Nullification, its history and legal theories, as well as the Tenth Amendment please see:

www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=57

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.

Excuses for Obama's Failure to Lead

This is a great article by Mr. Krauthammer explaining why the Democrats should stop whining. Why the US is governable and why Obama is a complete failure. We only have three more years of this guy left. Hopefully!


Excuses for Obama's Failure to Lead

Constitutional Government is Small Government by Michael Cochrane

In the past few weeks, I have had numerous discussions with my friends and colleagues regarding the powers of the Federal Government and whether the Obama Administration was stepping beyond the boundaries of the powers given the Central Government in the Constitution.  In fact, a number of people in my office had very little understanding of how American Federalism works.  Just by coincidence my friend Michael Cochrane had recently written a column that explains it pretty clearly and lays out the arguments for smaller government.  It also shows indirectly how far the Obama Administration is stretching the boundaries and destroying the Tenth Amendment.  With the permission of Mr. Cochrane, I now present his article to you for review and comment.

Constitutional Government is Small Government

by

Michael F. Cochrane

I carry around with me a little copy of the Constitution of the United States. It’s easy to do, since it’s very small document. Even with all of the amendments, a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution (along with the Declaration of Independence) is only about sixty pages in length. It is the supreme law of the land, and contains within its various articles the framework and specified powers for the Federal government of this country. The reason this document is so small is because there are actually very few powers specifically given to the national government. For example, Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers of the Congress. They are limited to: taxation, providing for the common defense (raising an Army and Navy) and declaring war, regulating commerce with foreign nations, establishing naturalization laws, coining (and borrowing) money, establishing post offices and post roads, granting patents, and other various duties such as protecting the nation from piracy and calling up the militia. The tenth amendment states in its entirety, “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”.

Why then, do we have a Federal government involved in every aspect of our daily life, from education, to health care, to dictating to private corporations? It’s a very long story, but we now live in a country where the unbridled power of the Federal government overshadows every aspect of government. Is this what the founders of our nation envisioned? We have become so used to the influence of Washington in our everyday lives that we take it for granted. But the Constitution does not authorize the kind of power our national government has appropriated for itself.

I’ve frequently asked myself what our country would be like if we actually had a Federal government that existed within the proscriptions of the Constitution. Would we be able to function? Wouldn’t many things just not get done? What is the role of the Federal government, the governments of the various States, local municipalities, and the private sector in providing the necessary services we need to have a functional and thriving society? I’ll try to walk through a few examples of areas where both government and the private sector are involved and do a thought experiment about what “small government” might look like.

Transportation. We have a system of Federal highways that culminated with the Interstate highway system that was essentially completed in the 1960s. Would we have been able to build such a system without Federal tax money or incentives? I suspect that such a system could have been suggested and planned at the Federal level, but the administration of its construction could clearly have been carried out with the States raising the revenue and overseeing the construction. The only real role for the Federal government (according to the Constitution) would be to regulate the commerce those roads carried between the States.

Education. We have a long history and tradition of local schools in this country; public schools financed by local taxes. The role of the Federal government in education of our nation’s youth is nowhere authorized in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the selective granting of Federal money to States and localities to support education has encouraged them to depend on the Federal government and look to it for revenue. It also makes it much easier for the Federal government to dictate to the States in areas of regulation of schools.

Social Welfare. It began with the passage of the Social Security act in the 1930s, but has grown to include Medicare, Medicaid, and Aid to Families With Dependent Children, commonly known as “welfare”. What was viewed initially as a step toward providing a minimum level of financial security to those unable to work either through old age or disability has become a huge system of Federal taxes that find their way into the general revenue fund and have not kept pace with the changing demographics of the nation. It can be argued that welfare programs have actually encouraged the breakup of families, when women are compensated by the Federal government for raising children out of wedlock. The current push to “reform” health care by setting up a so-called “public” insurance option and then mandating that all Americans purchase it or be guilty of breaking the law will only exacerbate the problem, raising Federal taxes and further limiting the ability of the States and the private sector to provide a vital marketplace for medical treatment and catastrophic medical insurance coverage.

The only constitutionally authorized Federal agency still providing services is the U.S. Postal Service. But do we even need a Federal Post Office? Why can’t FedEx, UPS, or any number of other private delivery companies bid on regional postal contracts for the delivery of mail? Could we eliminate the Department of Education? What would be the effect on our schools? I suspect it would not be negative. One might argue that there are Federal agencies, the elimination of which could be detrimental to the welfare and safety of the nation. The Federal Aviation Administration comes to mind. But I think it is a worthwhile exercise to systematically work one’s way through the Federal bureaucracy and analyze the degree to which an agency’s function is either 1) necessary, 2) could be performed by a State or municipal government, or 3) could be addressed through free market competition in the private sector. At the very least, such an analysis must be performed before rushing to the conclusion that every perceived problem must be solved through Federal legislation and the subsequent establishment of another Federal agency.

The size of our Federal government is largely our own fault. Part of the problem is that we continue to elect representatives to Congress whom we reward with reelection when they bring Federal dollars to their home districts. This is classic “pork barrel politics”, and it does nothing except make the problem worse. Until we begin to disassociate Federal representation with Federal largesse, government will continue to grow. A Constitutional amendment limiting terms of Federal representatives and Senators would go a long way toward relocating governmental power in the United States to where it primarily belongs: to the States and the People.

© 2009 by Michael F. Cochrane. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission.

My Swedish Summer by Anonymous

Here is another column by a reader. This reader wishes to remain anonymous. I hope you like it as it shows, again, a different perspective. I will try to get another column out before the end of the week. There will be a column by Ira Schwartz tomorrow about the Nobel Peace Prize.

My Swedish Summer

Many years ago, I left Sweden answering an ad for an Au Pair in Chappaqua, New York. I’m still here. Now married with a teenage child, and U.S. citizenship. I admit I didn’t pursue American citizenship until assured that I did not have to relinquish my beloved Swedish passport. The last three decades I’ve made Los Angeles my home (the west side and beyond). I’ve managed to return to Svenljunga, my birth village, each year for six weeks on average every year. The locals fondly refer to Svenljunga as “Texas.” Don’t ask! I’m just back with tales from the homeland:

Understand, I love Sweden and always will, but the societal difference is not so subtle now since I schooled for, and passed, my citizenship test in the United States. Except for specific dates, it wasn’t very difficult. I am told that only a small percentage of U.S. high school graduates could pass it. I commend our forefathers for the U.S. Constitution. It’s an incredible document which has withstood the test of time.

While raised in Sweden I wasn’t really aware that we were socialists. I knew that we would be taken care of from cradle to grave. “Doesn’t get any better than that,” my American born husband teases. It was a wonderful place to grow up, and still is. But socialism was not something I had any selective choice over and not something I would choose after living in the United States for more than twenty years. Following are some summer stories from family and friends over a Schnapps:

The Swedish government lists certain endangered wild animals (Lynx, wolves and eagles) to be ‘protected’ and therefore government property. My brother raises, trains, and shows champion hunting dogs, and was recently at a trials competition. He sent his dog out following a Fox scent (he tracks his dog on a special GPS), and noticed his dog had stopped moving. He went to the spot and found his champion dog covered in blood with an exposed bone protruding from his leg. He took the dog to a vet, where it was determined that the dog had been attacked by a Lynx and was lucky to have survived. Here's the silly Swedish socialist part: The government sent someone to verify the wounds were from a Lynx. They were. As the government takes responsibility for the Lynx' actions, they will reimburse thousands of dollars worth of vet bills plus the dogs lost stud fees until he is recovered enough to return to breeding. My brother submitted an estimated monetary loss for future show wins. Or why my husband calls us “Marshmallow Vikings.”

Stockholm authorities have decided to allow wolves to repopulate the country at the same rate as about a century ago. Farmers, of course, are less than thrilled to have wolves roaming the country. The comparison of Stockholmers to farmers reminds me of the radio ad knocking a picante sauce for being made in “New York City!” A local farmer recently lost 27 lambs, killed by what was determined to be a lone wolf. The government reimbursed the farmer at about $2500 per lamb.

The state supplies ‘personal assistants’ for the permanently disabled. A friend knew of a disabled person allowed a multi week vacation in Spain. Sweden allowed two personal assistants (travel, room, and pay) to accompany him on his vacation so his wife could enjoy her vacation as well.

A friend was put on paid "stress relief" leave (paid by employer) for eighteen months. His wife was then hired by the government to be his caretaker for the first three months.

And now the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to President Obama by a group of five Scandinavians, not Swedes, nine months and virtually no accomplishments into his White House stay. I’m not knocking the president, rather the award for “best intentions.” My husband keeps trying to educate me on baseball – not known in Sweden – and all the statistics that are cherished by fans. I wonder if baseball will add an “Intended-to-hit-a-homer” statistic now?

As Italians and Spaniards are generally considered Catholics, Swedes are Lutherans. When I was growing up, all birth, death, and marriage records were kept by the Lutheran church. Things have changed. I’m told the government now archives these records, and taxes citizens still considering themselves a member of the Lutheran Church. Dating to the 1700’s, everybody that happened to die in Svenljunga is buried at the village church cemetery.

I’m saddened to say that Swedes are constantly voicing discontentment over how poorly the state now treats them. It seems that being taken care of from birth to death is not enough anymore. The current ‘Moderat’ government is trying to trim some services that Sweden can no longer afford. As borders have been removed with the E.U. membership, so has the reality of job and industry loss.

Jealousness seems a common disease here, with a “Don’t you think you’re better than me” attitude being pervasive. Pleasing socialists seems a never-ending job. I hope to retire in the U.S. and visit my beloved Sweden each year. I continue to hope that President Obama does not change the current government here to the point where it cannot be fixed and socialism becomes its core. Remember, Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” And, that just might be what is happening in my homeland right now.

Business as Usual by Ira Scwartz

For the last several months, I have been reading numerous political blogs available on the internet. Most are eloquently written and usually point out the bad points of one political party or the other. The Democrats didn’t fulfill this campaign promise or the Republicans were really responsible for that disaster. I noticed that while both sides are quick to blame each other no one ever comes up with a solution that will benefit not just their political party but all Americans.

Our constitution proclaims rather loudly, “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States”. It doesn’t say “We the people of the United States that are Republicans or Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives.” It lumps us all into one group, the United States.

There was a reason for this. Our founders knew it would take the country as a whole, working together, to achieve the impossible; to achieve the birth of a new nation. But sadly the fire that propelled our forefathers to greatness seems to have long since burned out. Today our political leaders seem to be more interested in pushing their own agenda or working to get re-elected then actually doing what they were elected to do, represent the people.

It is not all their fault; we the people must take most of the blame. Our complacency over the years has allowed this to happen. In the absence of directions from us, they, like unsupervised children, have gone off on their own. When questioned, they tell us not to worry, they know what is best. Then they smile condescendingly, pat us on the head and plod forward, barely breaking stride as they continue preaching the same rhetoric. The political tabloids and so called news programs joke, “its politics as usual in Washington.” But you know what…that’s not funny anymore.

This country was founded “by the people and for the people” and we the people need to remember that. Each and every one of us is responsible for what this great country of ours says and does. After all we elected these people to speak on our behalf, trusted them to look after our concerns. So how do we get our country’s leaders to listen? It’s really very simple. All of us need to start paying attention again; to get involved again. All of us need to stop thinking of ourselves as red states or blue states, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives and start thinking of ourselves as Americans.

All of us need to get to know our representatives, check their legislative history, and see what they’ve been doing in our names. If we’re not happy with the way they’ve been representing us we need to let them know it. If they don’t listen we need to replace them with someone who will. The power has always been in our hands, all of us just need the will to use it. We need to reignite in all of us that spark our founding fathers knew so well. To participate as one in the journey forward our nation is taking in this new century. Then, and only then, can we all tell our leaders that “business as usual in Washington” is no longer acceptable.

©2009 by Ira Schwartz

Ira Scwartz is a writer working and living in Los Angeles. He has written for tv and film and has had two features produced.