Saturday, May 3, 2014


HOW  DEMOCRATS  SUPPRESS
 REPUBLICAN VOTERS
IN SOUTH FLORIDA
The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided that,

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Citi­zens can exercise that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote, urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the last of those options.
The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute. Our cases have held that Con­gress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 26–27 (1976) (per curiam). At the same time, we have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. See, e.g., Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 24–25).
   Many people might find those latter objectives attrac­tive: They would be delighted to see fewer television com­mercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or dispar­aging an opponent’s character. Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America we have empha­sized, the First Amendment “has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).
In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit polit­ical speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. “Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption.” Citizens United v. Federal Elec­tion Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 360 (2010). They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be respon­sive to those concerns.
Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance. See id., at 359. That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U. S. 257, 266 (1991). “The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.” Federal Election Comm’n v. National Con­servative Political Action Comm., 470 U. S. 480, 497 (1985). Campaign finance restrictions that pursue other objectives, we have explained, impermissibly inject the Government “into the debate over who should govern.” Bennett, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 25). And those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern.
The statute at issue in this case imposes two types of limits on campaign contributions. The first, called base limits, restricts how much money a donor may contribute to a particular candidate or committee. 2 U. S. C. §441a(a)(1). The second, called aggregate limits, restricts how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees. §441a(a)(3).
This case does not involve any challenge to the base limits, which we have previously upheld as serving the permissible objective of combatting corruption. The Gov­ernment contends that the aggregate limits also serve that objective, by preventing circumvention of the base limits. We conclude, however, tha that the aggregate limits do little, if anything, to address that concern, while seriously re­stricting participation in the democratic process. The aggregate limits are therefore invalid under the First Amendment.
A
For the 2013–2014 election cycle, the base limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), permit an individual to contribute up to $2,600 per election to a candidate ($5,200 total for the primary and general elections); $32,400 per year to a national party committee;1 $10,000 per year to a state or local party committee; and $5,000 per year to a political action com­mittee, or “PAC.” 2 U. S. C. §441a(a)(1); 78 Fed. Reg. 8532 (2013).2 A national committee, state or local party com­mittee, or multicandidate PAC may in turn contribute up to $5,000 per election to a candidate. §441a(a)(2).3
The base limits apply with equal force to contributions that are “in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediary or conduit” to a candidate. §441a(a)(8). If, for example, a donor gives money to a party committee but directs the party committee to pass the contribution along to a particular candidate, then the transaction is treated as a contribution from the original donor to the specified candidate.
   For the 2013–2014 election cycle, the aggregate limits in BCRA permit an individual to contribute a total of $48,600 to federal candidates and a total of $74,600 to other politi­cal committees. Of that $74,600, only $48,600 may be contributed to state or local party committees and PACs, as opposed to national party committees. §441a(a)(3);78 Fed. Reg. 8532. All told, an individual may contribute up to $123,200 to candidate and noncandidate committees during each two-year election cycle.
The base limits thus restrict how much money a donor may contribute to any particular candidate or committee; the aggregate limits have the effect of restricting how many candidates or committees the donor may support, to the extent permitted by the base limits.
——————
       1There are six authorized national party committees: the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Cam­paign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. See 2 U. S. C. §431(14).
2A PAC is a business, labor, or interest group that raises or spends money in connection with a federal election, in some cases by contrib­uting to candidates. A so-called “Super PAC” is a PAC that makes only independent expenditures and cannot contribute to candidates. The base and aggregate limits govern contributions to traditional PACs, but not to independent expenditure PACs. See SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Comm’n, 599 F. 3d 686, 695–696 (CADC 2010) (en banc).
3A multicandidate PAC is a PAC with more than 50 contributors that has been registered for at least six months and has made contributions to five or more candidates for federal office. 11 CFR §100.5(e)(3) (2012).PACs that do not qualify as multicandidate PACs must abide by the base limit applicable to individual contributions.

 MCCUTCHEON ET AL. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 572 U. S. ____ (2014), decided April 2, 3014.

            I cited this case as an introduction to this blog to give you a feel for what the conservatives on the current Supreme Court can say when the subject is only money and how much money a voter can donate to favored candidates in one election. 

Just imagine what they might say if the subject was access to the political process by registered voters who are being suppressed from participation in those political process rights where they live.  I am not focusing on the suppression of minority voters; I focusing about suppression of Republican voters.

This analysis gives facts that cover Palm Beach County, but it is applicable to any county where the majority of the registered voters are members of one party and the county has a large number of dwelling units that are condos, homeowner associations, or community associations.  Most of these counties are in South Florida.

For example, in Palm Beach County the total population on April 15, 2014 was 1,355,759.  The number of persons under 18 years of age was 20.1%.  www.Census.gov  So the number eligible to register to vote is reduced to 1,083,253. Of the latter number, there are 235,407 registered Republicans, 366,151 registered Democrats, 234,441 other registered voters, for a total of 835,999 registered voters.   www.pbcelections.orgThis leaves 247,254 census counted people who are not registered to vote.  In other words 23 % of the population in Palm Beach County is not registered to vote.        

Part of the 247,254 are persons counted as living here may be foreign nationals with second homes, undocumented foreigners (illegal aliens receiving US welfare or not), or US citizens living in second homes who vote elsewhere.  But it remains that 23 % of the population in Palm Beach County counted by the census is not registered to vote.  One might ask how the other 77 % can be causing so much trouble.  I will now make a stab at explaining the answer.

If these unregistered voters were allow to sign up to vote with same day registration (registered on the day of election), the major parties could easily be outvoted by the new voters, depending on which turn out to vote. There would be no way to catch or stop them these first timers if they all voted and 25% of the Republican stayed home. If a large part of the unregistered population were eligible to register and did so on election day, the party in which most of them registered would be on top easily.   Only Democrats like Ted Deutch recommend same day registration.

You probably have not contemplated the voting situation through this lens.  These numbers do not lie and I am not trying to mislead anyone.   But these numbers are not the main point with the voter suppression going on against Republicans.  There is more.

In Palm Beach County there are 1,572 homeowners associations containing 299,286 homes or undeveloped lots within those HOAs.  Palm Beach County has the largest number of HOAs in Florida and has a similar number of condo residents.    www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/sto/file_download/public-records-CTMH.html. You probably have not seen those figures before, but the Florida legislature ordered a study in 2013.

Using the 299,286 figure and 2.59 persons per house according to the 2008-2012 Census data,  this means there could be 775,150 persons living within just the HOAs, plus a large number in the condo associations.

According to the Supervisor of Elections for PBC the registered Democrats are 44% and the registered Republicans are 28% of the total registered voters. www.pbcelections.org.  Therefore, with distribution across HOAs presumed to be equal county-wide the residents (citizens of Florida or not) the HOA boards are likely to be represented in the same proportion.

  If these assumptions are true, then the Democrats can always out vote the Republicans on the boards or in the communities of South Florida.  In other areas of the state Republicans are not out numbered so much.  HOA boards, consisting of many more Democrats than Republicans, can successfully keep other parties from conducting any political discussions with neighbors under the standard covenants that run with HOA property.  These covenants are made into rules by the Boards and homeowners who are the Democrats, a 61% majority.  HOA rules often prohibit political activity. www.pbcelections.org.  

Is that is what is going on in Palm Beach County politics?   Some political activists think so.  You may know of cases where you live in South Florida. Some examples.

In Valencia Palms HOA in western Boynton Beach, there was an on-going and functioning Ronald Reagan Club that met monthly for a year or so until the Board of the HOA found out it was a political club.  That Board stopped them from meeting in HOA rooms and will not allow the club to use common space meeting rooms because politics is divisive and tears the community apart.

In Valencia Shores HOA in western Lake Worth, the Republican Committeeman had no trouble delivering literature for elections and talking to Republican voters from 2004 until 2012.  In the summer of 2012 he was warned he was “soliciting” in violation of community rules.  The Committeeman was told in writing that he would be fined by the Board if he did it again. 

The two Committeeman later wrote the Board and asked that the rules be changed for “soliciting” and that elected party committee people be allowed to walk the streets to speak to Republicans at their front door and leave literature if they were not home.  “Soliciting” was something else besides political communication. 

The Board then amended the two sentence rule into one sentence rule which still left approval to the discretion of the Board.  The Committeemen then wrote to ask the they be allowed to hang a plastic envelope with printed matter in it on the outside of mailboxes as the Board does for its HOA newsletter or to leave printed matter on the front door stoop in an envelope like the mailman, FedEx, or United Parcel Service driver does. 

The Board responded that it would then permit hand delivery of documents person to person.  But it “recommended” that no documents be left at the door or mailboxes.  In addition, the Board recommended that the Committeemen mail documents to the addresses or take an ad in the HOA newsletter. These Board decisions apply these same privileges to any newly elected Committeeman or Committeewoman as this part of the Committeemen’s request was not objected to.
[2018 update] The Board has now amended the rules to say that if  any group raises any money from its members that certain reports must be made periodically to the HOA.  This, of course, allows the Board to monitor what is being done by the people inside the HOA.
 
Of course, the Committeemen knew they could use the Post Office to mail documents to residents of his HOA.  The two Committeemen in this precinct know well the cost of getting political mail to the voters.  Five times in an election year and the bill would be north of $1,500.  The advertisement offer is another communication method that needs further testing. In the heat of the 2014 and 2016 elections is not the time for lengthy proceedings to change wording in ads.  Will the Board want to change the wording when they see the ad?   Will the ad make politics divisive?  Will the Board charge a higher fee for the political ad?   The uncertainty and the fact that the Board has already threatened fines, means caution is needed.  In court cases, this is called a “chilling effect.”  Do you see what is happening?

In all fairness to Valencia Shores HOA they have permitted one public meeting in October 2012 for candidates of the Republican Party.  They did so after the Committeemen cited the Florida Statute that allows reasonable use of HOA facilities by candidates for office or public officials.

There are probably many other instances like those of these two HOAs across the length and breadth of Palm Beach County.  If any reader has a story to share and will give their name, HOA name and stand by their story, this will be added to the collection of methods that the majority Democratic Party organization uses to control the political activity of Republicans with the resulting suppression of Republican political activity and voting.  Does your HOA allow political meetings in your HOA facilities?  Does your HOA prohibit you from delivering political literature to the door of the homes in your HOA?  If not, what are the reasons given for this suppression of your First Amendment rights. 

If one checks the voting records of Republicans, it can safely be said that the voter turnout is almost usually under 75%.  That means that for 235,000 voters, Republicans can only get 176,000 out in a good Presidential election.   Everyone knows that non-Presidential year elections have only a 10 to 20% turnout.  Republicans are such a small part of the registered voters in Palm Beach County that they need Independents and Democrats to vote for Republicans in order to win elections in Palm Beach County

The Republican vote is being suppressed by a number of things already, including indicted and convicted Republican office holders, turncoat Charlie Crist and his cadre of crooks, and the bitter and nasty pubic arguments between Republican candidates.  That 25% of registered Republicans have sat out on elections for the past 10 years is shocking.  Republicans have to deal with reality and get involved in selecting candidates and advising them to clean up their act.

These negative problems have to be dealt with up front – vetting candidates, being ready for the last two weeks attack from the nasty literature distribution from the Democrats, and having candidates that can speak truth to the lies in an understandable way.  Of course, being ready means having money for campaign materials, cable and TV ads and hundreds of coffees, receptions, meet and greets, and other events.  People who avoid the vote, probably do not give money to candidates. 

I urge you not to surrender your core First Amendment rights to make political speech and that you work to help your elected Committeemen and Committeewomen.  My wife and I signed nothing that agreed we gave up our First Amendment rights to live where we live.  If we could organize every precinct to spread the word about what needs to be done, we could win some elections just by showing up in larger numbers. 

Will you use some time to protect your First Amendment rights in 2014 and 2016, or will you simply go along to get along and send the bill for increases in government spending to your grandchildren?   Help protect what our forbearers gave us in the First Amendment.

[2018 update]  No progress has been made with the Florida legislature since attempts have been made numerous times.  Governor Scott referred me to the legislature.  No Republican would introduce a bill to correct this situation yet.  One Democrat introduced a bill and the Republicans would not assign it to a committee.  Admittedly the issue is complicated and a sponsor needs a brain and determination.  So does maintaining our First Amendment rights.  2018 elections are upon us and we can expect to be suppressed again.

                                                                                    William J. Skinner
                                                                                    BillSkinnerLW@aol.com

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

ENTITLEMENT REDUCTION PLAN TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE

Some people who know me know that I was a practicing pharmacist and a practicing attorney in my years before retirement. During those early years I worked as a retail and hospital pharmacist, as a marketing legal counsel drug manufacturer, as an executive and legal counsel for the association of schools of pharmacy, legal counsel and congressional liaison for the United States Pharmacopeia, and for an assortment of hundreds of individual clients. I am still a member of pharmacy and bar associations and keep up in some of those areas. Many people do not know that for the last 15 years I have published a newsletter concerning the laws and regulations of dietary supplements, botanical and herbal products plus the emerging science about these products. So I am very well acquainted with the market conditions and possibilities these products can offer to reduce the cost of illness and prevent disease.


  As I have been thinking about the immense Federal government debt in recent months, I have come across some ideas that may provide a way to stop the entitlement creep in the health care area, most specifically in the area of prescription drugs and other similar products. The entitlements that Congress has created to help get themselves reelected are now set to take over all of the discretionary spending of the Federal government.

  Currently we see commentators write about the $15 to 16 Trillion in Federal government debt, made up of $11 Trillion or so of deficit spending and about $5 Trillion of debt to various Trust Funds like the Social Security Trust Fund, the Highway Trust Fund and other federally established Trust Funds. Few people however write about or even understand that these two numbers do not include the amount needed to fund all of the promises the Congress and past Administrations have made for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid plus pensions for Federal employees and a few other items. If the cost of providing what the law has promised to future generations is calculated to give the present day cost of those programs there may be another $105 to $120 Trillion promised that we do not have in the bank or anywhere else.

  This has led Michael D. Tanner, speaking to the Cato Institute recently on the True State of the Union to say that “We are broke. And we cannot pay it back.!”

  If we are to fix this debt problem, large and bold plans must be developed that will change the way we forward fund all of our luxuries onto future generations. It is not fair of us in 2012 to borrow forty cents of every dollar we spend from China and expect the unborn to be saddled with the bill. Politicians will tell you we can get by one more election, then we can take care of the problem. I say we must start now, not later, to get our Federal spending in order.

  For a number of years I have been a member of the Life Extension Foundation, located in Ft. Lauderdale. The organization has a pharmacy, mail order operation, diagnostic labs and a magazine titled Life Extension®. Every issue contains an article about a conflict or road block that the Food and Drug Administration has put up to stop the sale of some product or to demand more proof of effectiveness and safety for drugs that might help some very sick people.

  Now these articles have been collected into a book titled, Pharmocracy, How Corrupt Deals and Misguided Medical Regulations are Bankrupting America – And What To Do About It, by William Faloon. The book (ISBN 978-1-60766-011-8) is available from www.lef.org and Praktikos Books info@praktikosbooks.com. Members of the Foundation can purchase it at a discounted price.

  The book contains information advanced by Faloon since 1998 through 2011. Over the years he has generated several attempts to get Congress to change laws related to FDA controls over pharmaceuticals to a free market system. But success has come bite by bite, not all at once.

  I am blogging about this book because it contains a treasure trove of background information and solutions to problems that have created our growing debt for healthcare. The ideas in the book are not the only solutions out there, but the book needs to be included in the thinking of policy planners and decision makers. We have reinvented too many wheels recently when some answers are staring us in the face.

  What does the free market system look like in the eyes of Faloon?

  In the Preface, he writes: “Pharmocracy provides an irrefutable and rational basis to remove the suffocating compulsory aspect of healthcare regulation and allow free-market forces to compete against government-sanctioned medicine.”

  “This book documents how the free market can provide superior healthcare at far lower prices while better protecting consumers.

  “I fear that disregard of the obvious problems revealed in this book will condemn the United States to a downward spiral with little improvement in human longevity.”

  One explanation of Faloon’s free market system is “Our longstanding proposal has been to change the law so that anyone can opt out of the FDA’s umbrella of ‘protection.’ This approach will allow companies to sell drugs that have demonstrated safety and a reasonable likelihood of effectiveness, which are clearly labeled ‘Not Approved by the FDA.’ Patients who wish can still use only FDA-approved drugs, while those willing to take a risk, in consultation with their doctors, will be allowed to try drugs shown to be safe that are still not approved.”

  “We believe this initiative will result in a renaissance in the practice of medicine similar to the computer technology revolution of the past three decades. In the liberated environment we propose, many lethal diseases will succumb to cures that are less expensive that is presently the case. And greater competition will help eliminate the healthcare costs crisis that exists today.” p. 85.

  Faloon says the main reasons we have a less than effective free market, is that “For more than a century, consumers have been misled into believing the FDA protected them against dangerous drugs. The harsh reality is that the FDA functions to protect the economic interests of the pharmaceutical establishment, while trampling on the rights of Americans to access safer and more effective natural therapies.” P. 99

  The Faloon system would rely heavily on trial lawyers to stop companies from selling drugs making fraudulent claims. The Federal Trade Commission would be given authority over drug claims that it does not have now. The FDA would no longer be an impediment to seriously sick people from getting the latest, even if unapproved, treatment for their problems. Faloon says, “So we have a system in place today in which progressive doctors are persecuted, while those who sell dangerous and often ineffective therapies receive protection and payment from the federal government. People without the financial wherewithal have no choice, since Medicate will only pay what the FDA claims is safe and effective. Conventional medicine’s goldmine will end when Medicare exhausts its ability to pay.” P. 124

  At the end of this 364 page book is a summary of the seven regulatory restructuring changes required to reap the rewards of the free market. “Congress must pass laws that prohibit regulatory agencies (both federal and state) from taking enforcement action that impedes competition, drives up costs, stifles innovation, chills free speech, grants privileges to certain groups that are denied to others, mandates government approval or licensing, and creates wasteful and corrupt bureaucracy.” p. 361.

  This is a lot to do. And there are some problems in my mind with Congress telling the States what they cannot prohibit, since the FDA is based on the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment is coming back to life. But the seven areas Faloon mentions are worthy as an outline for what needs to be considered.

  The problem right now is what Faloon recognizes in his Epilogue. He says, “Our government has no idea what’s destroying America’s healthcare system. I doubt any elected official understands more than five percent of what you have just learned in this book.”

  “One reason our political leaders wallow in blind ignorance is that healthcare is only one of hundreds of different issues they are responsible for.”

  We would all be well to elect only Representatives and Senators, as well as a President, who now understand what is explained in this book or pledges to undertake to read it and ask why the healthcare system must remain under all of the current regulation.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH ACORN

Things You Need to Know

Acorn or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is still with us and planning for the future destruction of the United States as we know it. On August 30, I received an Email notice from Newsmax that Matthew Vadum had written a new book titled Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers. What the Newsmax Email said about the book intrigued me, so I bought it and read it. I decided that some more people needed to know what is in this book, so you might read it and take action to monitor what ACORN is doing today. I hope after reading these few comments you will also read the entire book and start keeping track of where ACORN is today.

Because of ACORN’s past history of voter registration fraud and other criminal activities, and my work exposing double voters in Palm Beach County, I have become more vigilant than some in monitoring the signals of voting problems. As I read the book, I decided that Floridians, especially the Republicans, need to know what the book says about ACORN activities in Florida. So this is what this essay is all about. I want to share some facts and factors that the book brings to our attention.

Ronald Reagan called ACORN “dangerous” on a radio talk show in 1970. It was after that that ACORN declared war on the Republican Party and began to work with Democrats. Vadum relates that it was Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, a Republican, who in 1970 got ACORN into the voter registration business and gave ACORN $100,000 cash to get out the vote in Arkansas. (40) HUD Secretaries Alphonso Jackson, Jack Kemp, and Mel Martinez all worked with ACORN. Even John McCain’s support of ACORN got him into trouble in the third presidential debate in 2008. (49)

Not surprisingly, Vadum writes that “When he was still a Republican in 2008, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and his chief elections officer, Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning, both rejected McCain’s condemnation of ACORN. When reporters asked the governor if he objected to ACORN being active in Florida elections, he replied, ‘no.’ Browning concurred. Crist also signed into law an ACORN-backed bill that restored the voting rights of more than 100,000 ex-convicts.” (50)

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was for ACORN and signed a bill funding the organization before calling for the funding to be cut in 2009. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed an ACORN-backed bill that cracked down on the subprime lending industry. (50)

Cloward and Piven came up with the idea to register massive numbers of new voters as part of their strategy to push the Democratic Party to power. They wrote about this in ACORN’s magazine, Social Policy in 1983. (100)

The Congressional Black Caucus was formed in 1971, a year after ACORN, “as a vehicle in Congress for radical left-wing black politicians.” (127) Take note Allen West.

Saul Alinsky liked to taunt liberals. “A liberal is the kind of guy who walks out of a room when the argument turns into a fight,” Alinsky said. To Alinsky, liberals were saps to be manipulated. Alinsky was always able to find guilt ridden capitalists to fund the downfall of capitalism and Vadum names Marshall Field III and Midas Muffler founder Gordon B. Sherman. (132) Vadum says the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) gave money to Alinsky and continues to do so today. (133)

Although Alinsky has rules, these were written later in life. Alinsky’s most fundamental teaching is explained by David Horowitz, according to Vadum, that “radicals have to lie to their opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals.” Deception is the most important arrow in the radical’s quiver. “Radical arsonists such as Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright pose as civil rights activists; anti-American radicals such as Bill Ayers pose as patriotic progressives; socialists pose as liberals,” Horowitz writes. “The mark of their success is reflected in the fact that conservatives collude in the deception and call them liberals as well.” (138) Notice that lies are a main function of Taliban and Islamofacists, too.

After funding problems in 2009 and 2010 brought about by investigative journalists, ACORN Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America. (141)

Vadum says, “Alinsky taught the community organizer’s first job is ‘community disorganization’ by manufacturing crises in order to inflame the community. The organizer must “create the issues or problems.” He must “rub raw the resentments of the people of the community” and “fan then latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.” The organizer must “agitate to the point of conflict” because without friction and controversy “people are not concerned enough to act.” (142)

In Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College, Alinsky is reported to “have told her that he was the second most important Jew in the history of Christianity.” (147)

Florida ACORN gathered almost a million signatures to get wage increase measures on the state’s ballot in 2004, partly as a strategy to increase low-income turnout for the presidential vote. (254) Miami ACORN got a taste of its own medicine when it stiffed dozens of its 2004 election workers. The canvassers had helped get signatures to get Amendment 5 on the ballot to raise the state minimum wage. During a sit-in in the Miami ACORN office unpaid employees set fire to the office kitchenette and stole computers. (262)

The whole of chapter 13 is about Voter Fraud. In Florida, seven ACORN employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2010. Their names are Maurice Childress, Kashawn John, Littovia Rhodes, Carlos Torres, Evangeline Williams, Likevia Williams and Richard Williams. Vadum lists two pages of names of persons convicted of voter fraud from 1998 to 2010. (287)

“In Florida, consultant Joe Johnson stopped working with ACORN because he was concerned the group was not submitting complete registration cards to election officials, In that state, ACORN hired convicted armed robber Mac Stuart in 2003 as a petition signature gatherer, apparently without checking his background. Stuart rose of the ranks quickly and was put in charge of the Miami voter registration drive.” (292)

Matt Stoller, a senior policy advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) ran an online discussion forum, named Townhouse, for Nathan Hendrson-James, director of ACORN’s online campaigns. Henderson-James sent a message to members of Townhouse in February 2010 saying “Last one out turn out the lights and wipe the server.” This was part of an ACORN strategy to dupe Americans into thinking ACORN was shutting down. (330)

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) were demanding a probe of ACORN’s ties to President Obama, but a federal racketeering probe has not started yet in 2011. The Community Action Support Center (CASC) may be a main vehicle being developed by formerly named ACORN organizations. Watch for variations of this name to pop up is the way I read Vadum’s suggestion relative to this new group. (332)

The Vadum book goes on for 350 pages plus useful appendices. If what I have provided here does not excite you to read the book, then think about this information from Matthew Vadum: The Obama Administration is calling for $10.3 Trillion expansion in welfare in 10 years according to the Heritage Foundation. Only $6.4 Trillion has been spent on the wars in the Middle East, but $16 Trillion has been spent on the War on Poverty. By 2015 welfare will reach $1 Trillion a year.

Subversion Inc. is published by WND Books, and can be purchased on Amazon.com for less than $20. ISBN: 978-1-935071-14-3 (2011)

Friday, June 24, 2011

TENTH AMENDMENT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS

SUPREME COURT RULES TENTH AMENDMENT
MAY BE USED BY INDIVIDUALS
By William J. Skinner
In a case decided on June 16, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court filed a unanimous opinion in a Pennsylvania case saying that an individual has standing to defend a criminal charge as being based on an unconstitutional statute under the 10th Amendment.

The opinion clears up some confusion about a sentence in an old opinion in a 1939 case where states sued the Tennessee Valley Authority over the right of the Federal government to compete in selling electricity. Tennessee Electric Power Co. v.TVA, 306 U.S. 118. The Supreme Court seemed to limit the 10th amendment to the states.

In the current case, Carol Anne Bond v. United States, Mrs. Bond was convicted of two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 229, a Federal statute, of possessing and using a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals. She pled guilty with the right to appeal and received a six year sentence.

The appeal went from the U.S. District Court in Eastern Pennsylvania to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit affirmed the decision on the basis of one sentence in the 1939 opinion.

In the 2011 decision the Supreme Court made perfectly clear that there was an individual right to use the 10th amendment as well as a state right to use the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Third Circuit to decide if the statute was unconstitutional under the 10th amendment. So the case could return to the Supreme Court.
_______________________________________________________________
Please pass this on to all your attorney friends, especially those practicing criminal defense law, so that they know what has happened. The full opinion is available at: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf.

The dividing line between Federal and State law spheres of operation could be refined over the next several years if the right cases are appealed to the higher courts. This is about more than the enumerated powers belonging to the Federal and the other powers belonging to the states. These other powers now belong to the people, just as the 10th amendment states.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Basic knowledge used by the Founders

THE FOUNDERS STUDIED THESE WRITINGS
In very general terms, the Founders studied ancient Israel and Anglo-Saxon governing principles and systems that are similar in precept and operational structure. They studied the histories of the Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Europeans and the English. They studied the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the teachings of Jesus.

There also were significant books that they obtained and studied. Not every one of the Founders read them all, but among the Founders some Founders who applied them to their task of writing the Constitution read all of these. Here are a few of the authors and what the Founders learned from them in a capsule form.

Polybius – 204 to 122 BC. Next to Herodotus and Thucydides, Polybius was the greatest Greek historian. He began writing about the separation of powers doctrine among monarchs, aristocracies, and democracies. He proposed a mixed constitution. He was aware that each of these forms of government carried the seeds of degeneration if they were operated without checks and balances.

Cicero -- 106 to 43 BC. A great political thinker who discovered the Great Commandment of the Jews and Christians that said we should love, respect and obey the all-wise Creator. And Cicero taught that the second greatest commandment was that because justice is impossible except under the principles of God’s law, that the love of fellow man provides the desire to promote true justice.

Sir Edward Coke – 1552 to 1634. An English lawyer who was appointed Attorney General by Queen Elizabeth over the desires of Francis Bacon who wanted the job. Coke prosecuted Sir Walter Raleigh for treason among other high profile cases. Later he was appointed Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in 1613, a high paying job for the Crown. But he was removed in 1616 and made Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, a low paying job, by John I. The reason for the demotion was his unwillingness to compromise in the face of challenges to the supremacy of the common law over the King. In 1628 he was a Member of Parliament and helped write the Petition of Right that granted habeas corpus and other personal rights that later found their way into the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

Rev. Thomas Hooker – 1586 to 1647. A non-conformist minister who was silenced by a bishop in England, whereupon he fled to Holland and later to New England. Hooker was one of the writers of Fundamental Orders adopted by Connecticut in 1639 as the first written constitution in modern times. Rhode Island adopted this same document as well and the other original colonies reviewed this when it came time for them to write a constitution. Hooker based the document on the principles recorded in the first book of Deuteronomy and began to use the phrase We the People.

Baron Charles de Montesquieu – 1689 to 1755. Wrote The Spirit of Laws after 20 years of research. The writing took two whole years. His writing was greatly admired by the Founders. He refined the separate but coordinated powers of elements in a constitution and recommended an Executive, Senate, and Peoples Assembly and an Independent Judiciary.

Sir William Blackstone –1723 to 1780. He began the Oxford law school classes in 1753 and his lectures were published in 1765. These were read in America as much or more than in England. Blackstone confirmed the Founders’ wisdom by stating that the Natural Law is the only reliable basis for a stable society and a system of justice. He wrote there are laws for human nature just as there are laws for the orderly arrangement of the universe. Laws for human nature were revealed by God; whereas laws of the universe must be learned by scientific investigation.

John Locke -- 1632 to 1704. A physician who wrote an Essay on Human Understanding and insisted that one could know there is a divine Creator by simply thinking about it. He taught that each person knows he exists and each person knows that he is “something.” A “something” cannot be produced by a “nothing.” It follows that this “something” which arranged and organized everything would be all-knowing to the extent required.

Adam Smith – 1723 to 1790. A college professor in Scotland wrote Wealth of Nations, the first college textbook in economics. This was the watershed between mercantilism and free-market economics. Jefferson said this was an excellent book while many considered it too complex to read.

The idea for this article comes from a book titled The 5000 Year Leap. A basic theme of The 5000 Year Leap is that the current generation is ignoring what the Founders learned and knew as they wrote the Constitution that allowed the United States to be the greatest defender of freedom and the most economically developed country in history. This came about because the citizens were educated to be a part of a manifest destiny to expand these principles by example throughout the world. For the first 125 years, The Founders, ideas of fostering virtue (doing something for the good of the country, instead of always having to have a bigger and bigger salary or more personal power), having citizens educated in the reading writing and arithmetic, plus the basic principles of religion (not denominational creeds), was the way that government would continue to work for the betterment of mankind.

Author Cleon Skousen describes 28 Principles the Founders relied upon that changed the world in his book. A quote is provided from each of these descriptions in the book.
These are:

1st Principle – The Genius of Natural Law. Quoting Cicero, Skousen writes: “The Law of Nature or Nature’s God is eternal in its basis goodness; it is universal in its application. It is a code of “right reason’ from the Creator himself. It cannot be altered. It cannot be repealed. It cannot be abandoned by legislators or the people themselves, even though they may pretend to do so. In Natural Law we are dealing with factors of absolute reality. It is basic in its principles, comprehensive to the human mind, and totally correct and morally right in its general operation.”

2nd Principle – A Free People Cannot Survive Under a Republican Constitution Unless They Remain Virtuous and Morally Strong. Morality was a big issue in 1775-1776. Whether the people were sufficiently virtuous and moral to govern themselves was the single question leading to the final decision to become independent. Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Washington pointed out that the Constitution could survive only “so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.”

Skousen quotes Gordon S. Wood in The Creation of the American Republic to explain: “In a Republic, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This willingness of the individual to sacrifice his private interest for the good of the community – such patriotism or love of country – the eighteenth century termed public virtue… The eighteenth century mind was thoroughly convinced that a popularly based government “cannot be supported without virtue’.”

3rd Principle – The Most Promising Method of Securing a Virtuous and Morally Stable People it to Elect Virtuous Leaders. Sam Adams said we should not elect public officials if they lack experience, training, proven virtue, and demonstrated wisdom. Madison wrote: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary.” Fed. Papers, No. 51, p.322 Jefferson believed that the best citizens should accept major roles in public life. Jefferson felt it should be the goal of the whole nation to use education and every other means to stimulate and encourage citizens who clearly exhibited a special talent for public service. Samuel Adams and his younger cousin sacrificed their fortunes to serve in politics, which they considered to be the “divine science.” In the early history of the United States public stations were looked upon as an honor rather than a position of profit. Example, for eight years Washington managed to do without the $25,000 annual salary as President as he had done as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces in the Revolutionary War. Franklin saw the possibility of profit from public office as the means of an American monarchy coming about. A provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution said that every freeman should have an independent source of income so that there is no necessity to establish offices of profit. Believing these things, the Founders rejected some fads prevalent in Europe at that time.

4th Principle – Without Religion the Government of a Free People Cannot be Maintained. Many Americans fail to realize the importance the Founders attached to religion and that the Founders also felt religion would be more important in our day as well. In the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 they emphasized the need to teach “Religion, morality, and knowledge…”. Religion was defined as a “fundamental system of beliefs concerning man’s origin and relationship to the cosmic universe as well as his relationship with his fellow man.” Morality may be described as “a standard of behavior distinguishing right from wrong.” Knowledge is “an intellectual awareness and understanding of established facts relating to any field of human experience or inquiry (i.e., history, geography, science, etc.).” Washington commented in his Farewell Address “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” The Founders were not favoring a particular religion, but were encouraging the teaching of universal fundamentals that Franklin described as five points of sound religion. De Tocqueville wrote that religion takes no direct part in government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions … but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.” De Tocqueville also noted that the clergy seemed anxious to maintain “separation of church and state,” but they had a great influence on public life. He did not find any clergy in public administration as there were in Europe. The Founders were strong on religious equality – both Christian and non-Christian. Justice Storey wrote later that the Founders left the power over religion to the state governments. This is why the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The “wall of separation” that Jefferson wrote about was intended only for the Federal government. Jefferson so stated in his second Inaugural Address.

5th Principle – All Things Were Created by God, Therefore Upon Him All Mankind are Equally Dependent, and to Him They Are Equally Responsible. The Founders were of the same mind as John Locke in his writing that the human mind by itself could not produce a time piece or a lead pencil, as all of these are the product of intelligent design and precision engineering. Locke wrote there are many things we can know about the Creator by thinking about it. An atheist, Locke felt, has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation. Skousen says the Founders considered the whole foundation of a just society to be structured on the basis of God’s revealed law. These laws constituted a moral code clearly distinguishing right from wrong. All religious cultures in the world agreed. Blackstone wrote about it extensively and the Founders read Blackstone. Washington counted 67 incidents during the War where disaster could have occurred but for the intervention of the hand of God. Madison was also emphatic about God’s intervention in the War. This was not an idle gesture as the Founders at the time of the war adopted the motto “In God We Trust.”

6th Principle – All Men Are Created Equal. How can this be true? Only in three ways, says Skousen. They can be treated equal in the sight of God, in the sight of the law, and in the protection of those rights. Jean Jacques Rousseau was teaching that men were designed to be equal in every way. John Adams, while in France, wrote that all men were born to equal rights, but not with equal powers and faculties, equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is a gross fraud, and a glaring an imposition that was ever imposed on the credulity of people by the monks, by Brahmins, by priests of the immortal Lama, or by the self-styles philosophers of the French Revolution.

Equal rights are to protect the rights of the people equally: at the ballot box; at the public school; at the employment office; at the real estate agency; at the pulpit; at the podium; at the microphone or before the camera; at the meeting hall; at the print shop; at the store; at the bank; at the tax collector’s office; and at the probate court. The United States is a nation of minorities. Many minorities have assimilated before the Japanese, Chinese and blacks had problems. The blacks asked for equal rights at the employment office and things began to change for the better over asking for rights to gratuities. Throughout the struggle to assure equal rights, the Constitution has been amended with the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments. Inequality is a product of liberty.

7th Principle – The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not to Provide Equal Things. The Founders discovered the fallacy of taking from the “haves” to give to the “have nots,” a role of government in Europe. The Founders therefore restricted the role of government to those things that they individually have the right to do. As an example, everyone has the right to the protection of life and property, so it is legitimate to delegate to government the task of setting up a police department. But the government’s job is not to take a car from a man that has two cars and give it to someone without a car. A government that takes from one to give to another is a government that can take anything it wants. The Founders took the view that government could protect the rights of people and ensure that have the right to prosper. Based on their education and the protection of rights, America became the most prosperous country in the world and then became the most generous country. The Founders also had a deep concern for the poor and needy. But Franklin found that some compassion by government made things worse instead of better. By excluding the national government from intervening in the local affairs of the people, the Founders felt they were protecting the unalienable rights of the people from abuse by an over aggressive government. This is why no constitutional authority exists in the Constitution for the Federal government to participate in charity or welfare.

8th Principle – Men Are Endowed by Their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights. The Founders believed that those rights came directly from God. Therefore they were to remain sacred and inviolate. These rights also are called natural rights. Skousen says, “we may do something ourselves to forfeit the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, but no one else can take those rights from us without being subject to God’s justice. This is what makes certain rights unalienable. They are inherent rights given to us by the Creator. That is why they are called natural rights.” The Founders did not list all of the Unalienable Rights. The Founders knew a great many natural rights existed, such as the right to self-government, the right to bear arms for self-defense, the right to own, develop, and dispose of property, the right to make personal choices, the right to choose a profession, the right to choose a mate, the right of free conscious. The right to begat one’s kind, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right to free speech and free press, the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labors, the right to improve one’s position through barter and sale, the right to contrive and invent, the right to explore the natural resources of the Earth, the right to privacy, the right to provide personal security, the right to provide nature’s necessities – air, food, water, clothing and shelter, the right to a fair trial, the right of association, and the right to contract.

This concept of natural rights was well understood before Blackstone wrote about them eleven years before the writing of the Constitution. . There were three basis natural rights – the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property.

9th Principle – To Protect Man’s Rights, God Has Revealed Certain Principles of Divine Law. These laws are revealed in Holy Scripture. An analysis of the essential elements of God’s code of laws reveals it is designed to promote, preserve, and protect man’s unalienable rights. And divine laws also impose unalienable duties – both public and private. The public duties relate to public morality and are usually supported by local or state laws. Private duties are those that exist between the Creator and the individual.
Skousen lists 20 public and private duties, including the duty to honor the supremacy of the Creator and his laws, and the duty to follow rules of morale rectitude. The Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons practiced reparations to restore victims requiring the violator to make victims whole.

10th Principle – The God-given Right to Govern is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People. Royal families did all that they could to establish they governed by the “divine right of Kings” as a grant from God. King Charles II beheaded Algernon Sidney in 1683 for saying there was no divine right of kings to govern. That very year John Locke fled England for Holland where he could say the same thing Sidney said without fear. In 1690 Locke published his two essays on The Original Extend and End of Civil Government. The Founders agreed there was no divine right of Kings to govern. The Founders believed rulers were servants of the people. Anglos-Saxons believed the king was one among equals who could be replaced in any monthly meeting of the tribe. Hamilton extolled the “divine right of the people” and the consent of the people. Madison learned, when the Constitution was sent for ratification, that the people felt the Federal government was being given autocratic authority and he wrote in Federalist Papers, No46, p. 294 that the people must be told that the ultimate authority resides in the people.

11th Principle – The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which Has Become Tyrannical. Locke put the theory in writing and Jefferson incorporated it into the Declaration. The power resides in the majority and the minority has no right to revolt. The Virginia Assembly passed its Declaration of Rights a month before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Section 3 of the Virginia Declaration supports the majority right to rule doctrine.

12th Principle – The United States Shall be a Republic. The founders wanted a Republic because a democracy had never worked for a number of reasons. The Federalist Papers Nos. 10 and 14 argued it was better than a democracy and Madison explained it in No, 39, p. 241 as: “… a government which derives all of its powers from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons hold their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion of a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”

Skousen points out that “democracy” has been a causality of debates in the early 1900s. One hundred people, including Norman Thomas, established the Intercollegiate Socialists Society on more than 60 campuses in 1905. This organization was to throw the light on socialism. ISS established a snappy slogan, “Production for use, not for profit.” By 1921 the violence in the Soviet Union had given the term “socialism” a repugnant name, so the organization changed its name to “The League for Industrial Democracy.” The propaganda was that all production and resources would become the property of all the people. People learned this meaning of “democracy.” The Federal government defined “Democracy” and “Republic” in the U.S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25. Despite this effort, the schoolbooks and press identified the United States as a democracy and the country lost its identity with the public. Socialism became “democracy” in the minds of the world and this persists until today in most minds. People think the U.S. is a democracy and call it that.

Many people think the introduction of the word “democracy” to describe the U.S. was an attack on the Constitution.

13th Principle --- A Constitution Should Be Structured to Permanently Protect the People from the Human Frailties of Their Rulers. The question at the Constitutional Convention was how to have an efficient government and still protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the people. The Founders thought that leaders needed to be watched, even themselves. Rights are injured when there is the least suspicion. By 1798 Jefferson was writing his lines about the confidence placed in man, saying, “but bind him down by the chains of the Constitution. (Kentucky Resolutions of 1798). Madison saw that human leaders are complex and all have good and evil components. The Constitution was designed to control something that has not changed and will never change – namely, human nature. The Founders also knew that the erosion of Constitutional principles was often so slow the people would not detect it. Madison issued a warning to his state of Virginia when he detected erosion when he wrote his Memorial and Remonstrance in response to Patrick Henry’s ideas that government should support the churches.

14th Principle – Life and Liberty are Secure Only So Long as the Right to Property is Secure. John Locke pointed out that the Earth was given to mankind in common and mankind was given the responsibility to improve it “and use it to the best advantage of life and convenience.” If there were no ownership in property, there would be no subduing the Earth or extensive development of it. Without property rights, the lazy neighbor could move in as soon as the improvements were completed. And a stronger person could take it from that neighbor. Without property rights marauding bands would be running around taking what they want and the remainder of people would be living hand-to-mouth waiting on the next marauders. Property is a projection of life itself. Property rights are acquired when labor adds something to the property. A law of reason makes the deer that the Indian killed as the Indian’s property since he bestowed his labor on it, taking it out of the common right of every one. Redistribution of wealth was unconstitutional until 1936 when the Butler case in the Supreme Court allowed helping the poor and needy under the “General Welfare” clause. Ludwig Von Mises wrote that private ownership of the means of production is a necessary requisite of civilization and material well-being. Only nations committed to the principle of private property have arisen above penury and produced science, art and literature. Who then will take care of the poor? The Founders said in the Constitution that anybody but the Federal government has that responsibility. President Grover Cleveland vetoed legislation to spend Federal money on welfare. Instead he said to rely on the friendliness of our countrymen to take care of the poor.

15th Principle – The Highest Level of Prosperity Occurs When There is a Free-Market Economy and a Minimum of Government Regulation. The Founders were also concerned about economics. The Wealth of Nations came out in 1776 in five volumes. Adam Smith’s ideas about free-markets were first tried in the United States. There were four economic freedoms described: freedom to try; freedom to buy; freedom to sell; and the freedom to fail. The greatest threat to economic prosperity is the arbitrary intervention of government into the economic affairs of private business and the buying public. The government has only four policing responsibilities: to prevent illegal force in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products; to prevent fraud in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of items being sold or bought; to prevent monopoly which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade; and to prevent debauchery of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice -- pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.

Despite free-market economics giving American a boost in prosperity, by the 1900s some lost confidence in it. The populist movement started and big labor unions and agriculture interests advocated that government distributed the wealth. Extensive regulation was sought along with collectivism, socialism, government ownership of industry, and subsidy of farmers. Adam Smith became lost in colleges and was no longer read. Karl Marx became favored until 1929 through 1933 when Roosevelt began the interventionist controls of industry. No one read the Founders books until they went for a graduate degree. Eventually Adam Smith was rediscovered when Ivor Thomas wrote The Socialist Tragedy in 1951 about what socialism has done in Europe and Max Eastman wrote Reflections on the Failure of Socialism in 1962 about what socialism had done to America. Adam Smith was gradually rediscovered to have written about the lost jewels of the Founders’ plan. The Founders had determined to make the dollar completely independent of any power or combination of powers, and gave the powers concerning money to the Congress. But the Founders were coming out of a depression as they wrote the Constitution and a whole series of policy blunders were adopted. The Bank of the United States was set up similar to the Federal Reserve System of today. Jefferson protested. The Bank was allowed three or four times more paper notes than it had assets. Loaning out this money would “boom” the economy, but after loaning the money financiers would call for a “bust” and call in the loans. This pattern has continued for 200 years and sound money policy still has not had a hearing. Financiers built the economy on debt. Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln tried to turn the money system around so that Congress would issue money. When this ideas started to catch on, the London Times complained that the North American “government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

16th Principle –The Government Should be Separated into Three Branches –Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Polybius and Montesquieu’s writing helped the Founders realize that there should be a three-headed Eagle with one neck, or a coordinated government. John Adams, relying on his study of politics, the “divine science,” and Montesquieu’s ideas, pushed for separated powers in the Massachusetts Constitution during 1779 upon returning from France. Adams was also successful in getting acceptance of the separations of powers in the U. S. Constitution, but Skousen says he was never able to get acceptance of himself.

17th Principle – A System of Checks and Balances Should be Adopted to Prevent the Abuse of Power. Some members of the Convention wanted the separation of powers so complete that it would not have been workable. And this became grounds for opposing the Constitution. These Founders missed or did not understand the Montesquieu factor to have each department subject to the checks of the other two departments. Madison wrote five Federalist Papers, Nos. 47 to 51 to explain the separation of powers. The checks were designed to protect the will of the people. Pennsylvania tried a Council of Censors who could affix the blame for the problems, but was powerless to fix them. Others suggested that the people be allowed to vote on controversies.

In the end the Constitution made the departments separate to their assigned function, but made them dependent upon one another to be fully operative. The system turned out to be more complex than that envisioned by Montesquieu. Read The 5000 Year Leap for 18 separate checks and balances. Washington in his Farewell Address said these checks and balances were the genius of the American system of government.

Scores of nations have copied the U.S. Constitution, but left out the checks and balances. In those cases the president suspends the constitution and the machine guns come out. The U.S. Constitution still resolves problems peacefully.

18th Principle –The Unalienable Rights of the People Are Most Likely to be Preserved if the Principles of Government are Set Forth in a Written Constitution. Anglos-Saxon Common Law remained unwritten until they converted to Christianity. The Norman Conquest took away English rights and they got them back very slowly until their rights were written down. When the sword was put to King John in 1215, a writing, the Magna Carta, was signed to protect those rights. In 1628 Charles I, under pressure from the people, signed the Petition of Rights. William and Mary signed the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

Such writings in America began with the Mayflower Compact signed in 1620, followed by Rev. Hooker’s Constitution for Connecticut in 1639. There is no mention of the king or soverighn, only “We the People.” Montesquieu had another final word when he recommended that constitutions be written by the many, rather than the few. History demonstrates the final product was stronger than any constitution that might have been written by a single person. And the written document was available for reference rather than a whole bunch of scattered statutes as relied upon in Europe.

19th Principle –Only Limited and Carefully Defined Powers Should be Delegated to Government, All Others Being Retained by the People. Limiting the authority of the government was emphasized at the Convention. One reason the states would not adopt the original constitution was they feared federal encroachment on the rights of states and the people. The first ten amendments were added to place the Anglos-Saxon unalienable rights in the document. Then the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added to make certain of the limitations they were placing on the Federal government. The Foudners’ experience with corrupt and abusive governments in the past made this essential. The Federal government was supreme in matters where it was given authority, but it was forbidden to invade the independence and sovereignty of the states. Skousan says the Founders felt if the Federal government became dominant that would end local self-government and the security of the individual.

The Founders would have frowned on the 17th Amendment, adopted in 1913, because this took away the right of the states to protect themselves from the Federal government. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson began the progressive movement and the Federal government has gone downhill away from the designs of the Founders since then.

20th Principle – Efficiency and Dispatch Require Government to Operate According to the Will of the Majority, but Constitutional Provisions Must be Made to Protect the Rights of the Minority. The Founders learned that under the Articles of Confederation it was difficult to operate with the requirement that all states approve. Majority rule became a necessity and they studied what John Locke said about that and adopted this kind of voting. The Founders were also concerned about the minority. It always is the newest minority that feels left out. Jefferson wrote that the “minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would oppression.” Skousen adds, “It is the responsibilities of the minorities themselves to learn the language, seek needed education, become self-sustaining, and make themselves recognized as a genuine asset to the community. Meanwhile, those who are already well established can help. The United States has built a reputation of being more generous and helpful to newcomers than any other nation. It has a reputation worth preserving. Once upon a time, we were all minorities.

21st Principle – Strong Local Self-Government is the Keystone to Preserving Human Freedom. “Political power automatically gravitates toward the center, and the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent that from happening,” Skousen explains. The centralization of power destroys liberty and removes decision-making power from the local government to the central. Gradually this numbs the spirit of voluntarism,” Skousen says. Jefferson saw the advantages of the New England wards or townships as the wisest invention by man for self-government. This was based on the Anglo-Saxon and Israeli method of organization. The old English assemblies reappeared in North America as the people remembered how well they worked. Madison continually emphasized the need to keep the Federal government small and to reserve all possible authority to the state or the people. Therefore, the Constitution delegates to the Federal government only the power to deal with issues that affect the whole people of the nation. Jefferson expected the Federal government to be small and inexpensive. The historian John Fiske in his The Critical Period of American History says, “If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid) when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the government of the states shall have been so far lost as that the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of the counties of England – on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired.”

22nd Principle – A Free People Should be Governed by Law and Not by the Whims of Men. No rights are secure when men are governed by the whims of men. The Founders believed the law was a rule of action binding on the rulers as well as the people. Locke pointed out that the people have a duty to establish laws. John Adams wanted fixed laws. Aristotle argued for the same and said his teacher, Plato, was wrong to want the people governed by the few. The Founders believed that law would help preserve liberty, but that the law should be understandable and stable. Jefferson felt so strong about this that he resigned from Congress in 1776 to go back to Virginia to rewrite state laws, so that when Independence was won, the people would have a model system of legal principles they could understand and warmly support, Skousen says.

23rd Principle – A Free Society Cannot Survive as a Republic Without a Broad Program of General Education. The colonists in America took on the task of educating the whole population partly because they believed in a “manifest destiny” that was theirs to prepare themselves for an important role in unfolding modern world history. Public education started in Massachusetts in 1647 when the people passed a law that every 50 families must set up a free grammar school. These schools taught reading, writing, ciphering, history, geography and the Bible. The law also required every township with 100 families to set up a secondary school to prepare boys to attend Harvard. John Adams said these programs were to have “knowledge diffused generally through the whole body of the people.” Educational success was due to good school boards.

John Adams, who spent many years in France, said that of 24 million Frenchmen, only 500,000 could read and write. The Founders’ goal was to have all Americans educated. In 1831 De Tocqueville wrote, “In New England every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution. In the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is sort of a phenomenon.” (Democracy in America, 1:326-327)

As the pioneers went west, they established mores schools. Education always included morality and politics. De Tocqueville said “The American learns to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in the forms of government by governing. … in the United States, politics are the end and aim of education …. (Ibid. pp. 329-330)

By 1843, Daniel Webster said, “…whatever may be said to the contrary, a correct use of the English language is, at this day, more general throughout the United States than it is throughout England herself.”(The Works of Daniel Webster, 1:102) Skousen says that Americans spoke with genuine eloquence. Sermons and orations by men of limited education reflected a flourish and style of expression that few Americans could duplicate today. Many attributed these abilities to extensive reading of the Bible, which Webster said was a book of faith, a book of doctrine, a book of morals, a book of religion, q book that teaches man his own individual responsibility, his dignity and his equality with his fellow-man.

24th Principle – A Free People Will Not Survive Unless They Stay Strong. Up until recent years, the United States has had super prosperity. Skousen says that only as the Federal government usurped authority (since the 1930s) and meddled in the free-market system economy has the surge of prosperity and high production of goods and services been inhibited. The Founders were convinced that prosperity and freedom would continue if the people remained virtuous and adequately armed. Franklin believed that we must be thoroughly armed and have a strong security before we could ask assistance from Heaven, (Smyth, Writing of Benjamin Franklin, 2:352) In Franklin’s time the people became apathetic and he was disgusted. No man wanted peace more than Washington and no man was willing to risk more in life and property to achieve it. Washington wanted us ready at all times with a plan. Washington did not want us dependent on the policies of other nations. By his fifth address to Congress, Washington has to press the Congress to provide for an adequate defense. His view was, “There is a rank due to the United States among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness….” (Fitzpatrick, Writing of George Washington, 33:165)

Samuel Adams emphasized the moral responsibility of Americans to preserve the heritage of freedom and unalienable rights that the Creator how endowed upon them. He felt it was wicked and unnatural to let the fruits of liberty anguish by neglect of apathy. (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:504) The Founders passed on a policy of peace through strength, but dependent on virtue.

25th Principle – “Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship with All Nations – Entangling Alliances with None.” Jefferson said this in his first inaugural address. The Founders had a doctrine of “separatism.” This is different from “isolationism” used in recent years. The Founders wanted wholesome relations with all nations, but they wanted no part of sectional quarrels and international disputes. They wanted to avoid alliances with one country that would make them enemies of another, much like modern Switzerland. Response would be made when the Founders were threatened. Washington felt that “The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to is affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” (Farewell Address)

Washington pointed out that most-favor nation status would open the United States to strong foreign influences, which could subvert the security or best interests of the U.S. Washington laid down his famous policy of foreign relations: “The great rule of conduct of us, in regard to foreign nations, is extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” (Farewell Address)

Jefferson reiterated these principles after Washington was dead at age 68. The “manifest destiny” doctrine of the Founders made the American separatism different from Swiss neutrality. The American people were responsible for serving as the vanguard nation for the moral and political emancipation of all mankind. Adams said our success was due to Providence and we were to emancipate mankind all over the earth. (Tuveson, Redeemer Nation, p. 25) Madison wrote: “happily we trust for the whole human race, they [the Founders] pursued a new and more noble course.” (Federalist Papers, No. 14, p. 1-4) The Monroe Doctrine was designed to insulate the western hemisphere from the quarrels of European Monarchs.

But after the eruption of World War I, the United States was drawn into the conflict. The Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh (father of the flyer) said that this “internationalism” was a serious mistake. He pointed out we elected a president to a second term because he kept us out of the war. But no sooner was he elected than the propaganda began to get us into the war. “The greatest good we could do the world at that time was to stay out, and that would have been infinitely better for ourselves, for we could have helped the world had we conserved our resources.” (Lindbergh, The Economic Pinch, pp. 233-235)

When World War II broke out we hoped we could stay out of it, but we favored England and France. The Japanese attacked Hawaii. We were in. These veterans are now dying off in 2009.

26th Principle – The Core Unit Which Determine the Strength of any Society is the Family; Therefore, the Government Should Foster and Protect Its Integrity. Back in 1831De Tocqueville wrote: “There is certainly no country in the world when the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. The Founders felt the Bible established the legal, moral, and social relationships between man and woman. (Davis, The American Search for Woman, chap. 5.) God’s law, in theory, made man first in governing the family, Skousen says, but as between himself and his wife, he was merely first among equals. John Locke’s writings stressed equal responsibility of mother and father in rearing children. (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 36) Read more in The English People on the Eve
of the Colonization, 1603 – 1630, p. 168).

New studies and information indicate Franklin was not a woman chaser as some earlier authors claimed, Skousen says. He did have an illegitimate son, but raised him honorably and the son, William, became Governor of New Jersey. The stories about thirteen illegitimate children have come from myths. Franklin even tried to dissuade a young friend from taking a mistress in a letter. (Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 70) Locke wrote about parents’ responsibilities and what a mature adult should know. Locke wrote about children’s responsibilities to parents. Locke wrote that the state should not interfere in legitimate family relations. The family is vitally important to the culture.

27th Principle – The Burden of Debt is as Destructive to Freedom as Subjugation by Conquest. Slavery is the result of debt as it is borrowing against the future. And the creditor must be paid as well. The Founders knew that borrowing in the time of crisis was necessary, but they felt it was a temporary situation that should be paid off as soon as possible. The Founders recognized debt for what it was, a necessary evil. Debts come from splurge spending. They felt debt should be avoided like the plague. Franklin wrote a lot about debt, saying, “Tis hard for any empty bag to stand upright” as Poor Richard.
The Founders’ policy on a national debt was that a debt shared by the whole people makes it no less ominous. They felt we must get out of debt in order to prosper.

Jefferson wrote: “I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared.” (Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:47) Skousen says the Founders felt that wars, economic problems and debts of one generation should be paid for by the generation which incurred them. Jefferson believed that inherited debt was immoral. The Founders established a policy of paying debts promptly and this was followed until the present generation (2009 and back to the 1930s) when all three branches of the Federal government began overstepping their constitution boundaries. Milton Friedman, a Nobel prizewinner, has demonstrated that all of the unauthorized tasks undertaken by the Federal government proved counter-productive, some tragically so. Today we are spending the next generation’s inheritance. When the “fix” is more spending, the habit continues. Skousen says the problem is primarily a matter of will power – the determination to change.

28th Principle – The United States Has a Manifest Destiny to be an Example and a Blessing to the Entire Human Race. Historians agree that the single most important feature of the settlers in America was their over powering sense of mission – a conviction that they were taking part in the unfolding of a manifest destiny design which would shower its blessings on all mankind. John Adams felt if the American people failed the Constitution it would be treason. John Jay considered America to be a Providential blessing. In Federalist Papers, No. 2, p.38, Jay wrote: “This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence than an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.” Madison concluded in Federalist Papers, No. 14, pp. 1-4-105 that: “Happily for America, happily we trust for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a resolution that has no parallel in the annuals of human society. They reared the fabrics of governments that have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate.”
________________________________________________________________________
This summary of The 5000 Year Leap was written to allow you to get a flavor for what is in the book. Reading the summary will give you a good idea why you should read the book. My hope is that this will encourage the reader to seek more information about the Constitution and work with others to reestablish the virtues that made the United States great in the early years.

If you read this book and make a list the things we do not do today as a people in the United States that the Founders did, you will get a good idea of the list of things we have to change to achieve the Founders’ dreams for us.

It easy to see that in this generation we have taken the easy way out. Divorce is common. One-parent families are common. Government spending for now to be paid later is common.

In the book, The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World otherwise known as Principles of Freedom 101, W. Cleon Skousen has documented how the Founders wrote the Constitution, what they read and studied before writing it, and why it worked.

The result of what the Founders put in the Constitution was a 5000 year leap for mankind that the current generation is squandering. The book is published by the National Center for Constitution Studies, ISBN 0-88080-148-4. www.nccs.net or 208-645-2625. Originally published in 1981, the book was revised in 1991 and 2006 and is now in its 7th printing.

If you want to learn a great deal more than this summary contains, get the book so we can plan together to get out of the Constitutional and economic crisis and mess now enveloping the United States. This article boils down 337 pages to only 15 pages to save you time and wet your appetite for more.

William J. Skinner, B.S. Pharmacy, Butler University, 1960; Doctor of Jurisprudence, Indiana University Law School – Indianapolis, 1965.
Contacts: 561-433-1170. BillSkinnerLW@aol.com