EXTREME VETTING WILL FIND RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS

 

A person casting their vote into the ballot box.
Extreme vetting will ensure that terrorists cannot hide among immigrants.

Psychologists and socialists developed a system of questionnaires and interview questions, “extreme vetting,” that could identify radical Islamic terrorists; and the terrorists will be unaware that they have been identified. “Extreme vetting” could also identify those unable to assimilate into our society. After WWII, social scientists developed questionnaires and interview techniques to identify and quantify traditional family dynamics and antisemitism in the Europe and United States. The same techniques could serve as a model for extreme vetting. Discussion of this extreme vetting model is based on research described in The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (TFS) by Rolf Wiggershaus translated by Michael Robertson.

Since The Frankfurt School, as this group of scholars was known, made significant contributions to the left’s Marxist, socialist, progressive, liberal, Democrat agenda in Europe and North America, an introduction is warranted. The Frankfurt School was the only group of scholars whose contribution to Marxist thought was considered collectively significant by the editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT (ADMT). Indeed, several books have been dedicated to the evaluation of the contribution of this group to modern Marxism and the Progressive Liberal movement. This group of German scholars of largely Jewish descent was extremely influential in assuring Marxism’s “assimilation into modern social sciences.”  After realizing that the communist revolution was not progressing as expected, this group of Marxists saw the need for a different more inclusive, multidisciplinary, incremental approach to social revolution. They saw that the contradictions between the philosophy of Marx and the realities of communism under Lenin, and later, Stalin in the Soviet Union were largely responsible lack of progress of the revolution in Western Europe and the United States. The group sought to accomplish this goal without stressing either the nature of the principles they promoted or their relationship to the widely discredited Stalinist version of Marxism by eliminating obvious Marxist terminology (ADMT p. 182-188), Stealth Marxism.

In 1923, the Institute of Social Research was established in association with faculty members and academic leaders of Frankfurt University to counter Soviet Communism and pursue an alternate path toward Marxism. In 1933, the group was exiled from Germany and moved to the United States where its principle leaders became faculty members at Columbia University. The group was directed by Max Horkheimer. His two principal associates were Friedrich Pollock and Theodor Wiesengrund-Adorno. Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Herbert Marcuse were significant, but lesser associates of the group. Walter Benjamin, Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Jurgen Habermas were also important but even less integrated associates of The Frankfurt School. Publications by this diverse group included works in the areas of philosophy, sociology, social psychology, economics, national planning, musicology, psychoanalysis, political science, law, pop culture, literature, political economics, essays, and literary criticism. The motivation of this group was to promote an interdisciplinary approach, which became known as Critical Theory, for incremental transformation of society to one based on Marxist principles. With time, this approach has been expanded to include many aspects of the biological and ecological sciences, and whenever possible the physical sciences.

The Frankfurt School was at the forefront developing a model for extreme vetting. From the outset, research projects used psychological and sociological questionnaires and polling techniques as the basis for their critique of society. Their project methods included both written questionnaires and leader driven interview and discussion group methods. Their pioneering work in this area began in the early 1930’s. Eric Fromm was initially responsible for development of the questionnaires and interview techniques. According to Wiggershaus, he expected three categories of information to emerge from analysis of the data. First, he expected to develop a perspective of the political, social, and cultural views of respondents. Second, he sought to formulate social-psychological types and their relationship to various political party groups. Third, he hoped to discern methodological capabilities of questionnaires and further refine the procedures.

Fromm’s ideas for a methodology to accomplish these tasks were to infer the character structure of each person from the whole questionnaire. Questions, that would promote conclusions about the hidden, unconscious tendencies and instincts of each respondent which would reveal their character structure to trained observers, were embedded in the questionnaires. The exhaustive questionnaires included sections containing apparently innocent questions which would permit conclusions about hidden personality traits. The conclusions were validated by comparison with the general impression given by a person’s answers (TFS, p. 113-116). Accordingly, character structures should have a basis in explicit psychological theory, influenced by the empirical material of the research itself, and consistently differentiated. The purpose of these ideas was to develop a methodology that would fulfill the goals of analytical social psychology as he saw them (TFS, p.170-171). The methodology could be used for “extreme vetting” that would identify individuals with strong affinity for radical Islamic terrorism and an inability to assimilate.

Paul Lazarsfeld, was the primary empirical data analyst for the The Frankfurt School with an in-depth understanding of Marxist philosophy. He was a pragmatic and methodical social scientist. His experience evaluating, categorizing, and statistically analyzing psychological and sociological research data based on questionnaires and interviews was extensive. In guidance for interviewers and assistants Lazarsfeld noted that none of our assistants should appear in the role of a reporter or observer, but rather that each of them should blend into life naturally by means of some function or other useful to the people. His guidance was consistent with a previous statement about research involving interviews and questionnaires where he noted that

Only a researcher who is so close to the problem in his own life that he only needs to practice introspection to be able to produce a conceptual and methodological apparatus and possesses the scientific brutality to translate this experience into data and formulae which can be checked can help to make problems less opaque than they are at present (TFS, p. 166-167).

Lazarsfeld’s research was well received by the Rockefeller Foundation which financed a trip to the United States and resulted in an eventual position at Columbia University where he became the first Director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research which was the predecessor of the modern Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. This group could be contracted to develop a tool for “extreme vetting.”

Studies on Authority and the Family was an import result of the collaboration between Fromm and Lazarsfeld. Fromm claimed that the authoritarian, patricentric, bourgeois (Capitalist) Protestant society and family resulted in character types essential for authoritarian and capitalist societies. In Fromm’s view, these character types enjoy accumulating property and capital without regard for the effect of their accumulation on fellow human beings and feel that acquisition of power is even more important than accumulation of property and capital. Studies on Authority and the Family may be one of the most significant assaults on the paternal Judeo-Christian family and Christianity of the first half of the twentieth century. Fromm used the study to formulate his sado-masochistic character type as a product of the patricentric, bourgeois-Protestant society and family. Although data from the questionnaires was not referenced by Fromm, the study appears to be the basis for a great deal of subsequent psychological research designed to demonstrate the adverse effects of the traditional Judeo-Christian family, Christianity, and religion on individuals and society under both capitalism and authoritarian governments. Again, the methodology could be adapted to accomplish “extreme vetting” of immigrants.

Although the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation were approached for antisemitism research grants, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labor Committee provided financing for the project. One aspect of the project dealt with antisemitism from the perspective of psychology of the masses including the instincts and thoughts of men. The project was also designed to continue development of experimental psychological research methods. The questionnaire and interview methodology developed required interviewers who know the interviewees and whom the interviewees trust. Questions included, How do you distinguish a Jew from another person?, What do you think about the Detroit Riots?, and Do you go to church? The questions established the attitudes of respondents about Jews and anti-Semitism. The interviewers were told that the openness of everyday conversational situations would allow both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the material collected in a pioneer experiment in social research that would provide insight into what working people honestly are thinking about the whole Jewish question’ and why they feel that way. Polls and interviews could not provide the insights that would be gained from conversations. Obviously, techniques are know to develop tools that would work well for “extreme vetting.”

Wiggershaus reviewed collaboration between The Frankfurt School and a group of psychologist from the University of California at Berkley, R. Nevitt Sanford, Else Frankel-Brunswik, and Daniel J. Levinson, which was a key part of the anti-Semitism project. The Berkley researchers, who referred to themselves as the Public Opinion Study Group early in the project, developed a unique combination of questionnaires, interviews, and projective psychological tests. These collaborators concluded that an indirect means of assessing anti-Semitism would be advantageous and started working to develop a method to accomplish the task. The indirect questions were formulated by using two questionnaires given consecutively to various test groups. The first questionnaire contained no obvious anti-Semitism questions or questions related to other forms of prejudice. The second questionnaire contained a mix of questions related to Jews and ethnocentrism and other subjects mixed in a manner designed to disguise the intent of the questions. The purpose of this format was to find questions in the first questionnaire with high correlation to anti-Semitism displayed in the second questionnaire and develop a highly reliable indirect research tool. Wiggershaus observed that years later Adorno made the following statement about the process of developing the questions:

We spent hours waiting for ideas to occur to us for individual items for the questionnaire. The less their relation to the main topic was visible, the prouder we were of them. We then checked these items in constant pre-tests to restrict the questionnaire and exclude those items which proved not to be sufficiently restrictive (TFS, p. 373).

One result of the collaboration between The Frankfurt School and the Berkley Public Opinion Study Group was development of the F-scale (Fascism Scale). The scale was an effort to measure psychological dimensions, variables, and syndromes, providing evidence of a connection between anti-Semitism, fascism and the destructive character in experimental proof of the threat that anti-Semitism poses to democratic civilization. Similar methodology could be developed that would provide an IT-scale and an A-scale for Islamic terrorist tendencies and assimilation potential, respectively.

The questionnaires included questions such as, Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living; and The Jews should make a sincere effort to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they want to stop being persecuted. To access the level of anti-Semitism, respondents registered three levels of agreement or disagreement to each question. As in previous questionnaires, projective questions such as, What great people, living or dead, do you admire most? were inserted to evaluate respondent personality structures. Clinical case study methods including use of pictures of groups of people were used to evaluate reactions to various types of people and interpersonal relationships. Initially, seventy-seven women students participated in questionnaires ten of whom were evaluated in the clinical tests. These methods were used to reveal the groups concept of the personality which included determining modes of behavior and conscious convictions, deep-seated, often unconscious, tendencies influencing behavior and convictions, and overt and covert anti-Semitism.

According to Wiggershaus, one result of this research was A Scale for the Measurement of Anti-Semitism. The research also revealed two distinct modes of antisemitism. Affluent Jews, bankers, brokers, and merchants, etc., were viewed as oppressors by middle and lower class non-Jews who saw them as the immediate cause of their misery. Middle class Jews who usually embraced individual achievement while maintaining Jewish ethical and religious values — such as learning, intellectual achievement, social betterment, and things of the spirit contrary to the social behavior customary to their social setting were viewed as non-conformists and also experienced anti-Semitism.

The methodologies and questions exist to determine whether an individual is hiding their ties to radical Islamic terrorism and would support the Constitution of the United States over preference for Islamic enclaves governed under Sharia Law. This process would be extreme vetting. Psychologist and sociologist have developed questionnaires and interview methods that identify conscience and unconscious personality and cultural characteristics associated with what Fromm called the sado-masochistic character type which appears to be consistent with the personality type of radical Islamic terrorists. They developed a scale to measure antisemitism indicating that a scale to can be developed measure conscience and unconscious tendencies and attitudes necessary for an individual to become a terrorist. Similarly, a scale like the Fascism Scale can be developed to measure psychological dimensions, variables, and syndromes to evaluate a potential conscience and unconscious connections between radical Islamic terrorism and Islam. For conversational, individual, and group interviews, undercover intelligence officers and Special Forces operatives have the training and experience to blend into subject groups and conduct casual and non-threatening interviews necessary for effective extreme vetting. In my opinion, an effective system of extreme vetting could be implemented in a relatively short period of time. Such a system would provide far more confidence among We the People regarding immigration of people from areas known to produce radical Islamic terrorists.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

UNDETECTABLE VOTER FRAUD

 

In the United states today, Undetectable voter fraud is a reality for several reasons;but first an important question should be answered, Does voter fraud matter? In The Federalist No. 43, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, discussed his disdain for the possibility of illegal votes that influence the outcome of an election, as follows:

Victory may be calculated by the rules which prevail in a census of inhabitants, or which determine the event of an election! May it not happen in fine that the minority of CITIZENS may become a majority of PERSONS, by the accession of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, or of those whom the Constitution of the State has not admitted to the rights of suffrage?

The simple answer is YES, undetectable voter fraud matters!

A person putting their vote in the ballot box.
Under current conditions in the United States, undetectable voter fraud is the unfortunate reality.

Undetectable voter fraud is a reality under the current system of voter laws as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States and the states. Each step in the voting process must include fraud protection measures or undetectable voter fraud will exist. There are several steps in the voting process that must be regulated in order to prevent undetectable voter fraud. These steps follow: 1) States must require proof of citizenship to register to vote. If they do not, states cannot certify a fraud free election where only citizens voted. States could certify that votes were cast in the name of registered voters; but states could not certify that only citizens voted; 2) States must require presentation of state issued photo identification only available to citizens at the polling place before any individual votes. If they do not, states cannot certify that each vote was cast by a legal citizen voter; 3)  States must ensure that diseased persons are removed from the voter rolls at least before each Presidential election. If they do not, states cannot certify that no voter fraud occurred in that election; 4) States must ensure that citizens are registered to vote in only one state, or precinct in the state. If they do not, states cannot certify that no voter fraud occurred in any election.

States must insure that all of the above parts of the voting process are regulated in a manner that ensures that each legal citizen only voted once in an election. Otherwise, any state attorney general or state officer certifying the vote cannot truthfully say that undetectable voter fraud did not occur. Consequently, no election officer can honestly state that no voter or election fraud influenced election results if fraud could take place in any part of the total election process from registration to the actual vote.

It is time that questions surrounding the voting process in the United State are resolved in a manner that ensures that only one vote per legal citizen is possible; and only legal citizens can vote. Until these issues are resolved, claims that there is no significant voter fraud in the United States are unverifiable because voter fraud is undetectable.

Apparently, undetectable voter fraud is preferred by progressives and the Democrat Party. That makes it easier to win the popular vote in Presidential elections.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

CAPITALISM’S GLOBALISM CONTRADICTION

 

A person holding a globe with cars in it
Capitalism’s globalism contradiction centers on cost savings in emerging markets.

Capitalism’s globalism contradiction centers on Executive’s and Board of Director’s obligation to maximize profits and their obligation to their employees, their communities, and the nations of their origin. Failure to consider the implications of this contradiction provides the left with a powerful criticism against capitalism. In the United States, this contradiction is exacerbated by our high labor costs and benefits, safety regulations, environmental regulations including environmental impact assessments that increase both the costs and time required to open a facility or project, financial system regulations, land use and zoning regulations, and past high corporate taxes. The relationship between profit and societal obligation is only one component of capitalism’s globalism contradiction.

Another aspect of capitalism’s globalism contradiction is the incredible economic success of western civilization, especially in the United States, since the start of the industrial revolution. Until the 1960’s or 1970’s, globalization was not a significant issue in relation to competition and market share for corporations in the western world. Consequently, costs associated with land, labor, and capital were comparatively inconsequential strategic considerations compared to today’s markets. Costs of doing business were evaluated only in relation to competition in the United States and other western industrial powers. For example, the big three US auto makers competed among themselves for US market share and labor. Labor union contracts for wages, benefits, and working conditions that often precluded effective discipline and quality control were virtually identical throughout the US auto industry. The result was high industry wide wages, benefits, and job security. As countries like China, South Korea, India, other Eastern Pacific rim countries, and parts of the old Soviet Union emerged as competing centers of industry, the cost of land, labor, and capital became a competitive liability for western industry.

Finally, North American and European capitalists are harnessed to strongly unionized labor forces unwilling to negotiate lower, more globally competitive wage, benefit, and work condition packages which could have slowed reductions in US manufacturing and plant closures. This issue is complicated by the success of western capitalism causing high costs of living and the expectation of high disposable income to finance the good life. These two factors make efforts to make our labor costs more competitive in the global market difficult. Western capitalism’s success also amplifies capitalism’s globalism contradiction when faced with emerging markets for our products and competition with our products throughout the world.

Capitalism’s globalism contradiction is profit versus support of the labor force that makes their products or provides their services and loyalty to the communities and countries of their origin. Interestingly, it is also the left’s globalism contradiction, maintaining wealth for our workers while redistributing wealth to developing country industries and workers.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

 

OBAMACARE: DOOMED TO FAIL

 

One reason that Republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory was that they chose the wrong slogan for elimination of Obamacare. The idea of replacement is framed by Democrats as replacing a failed monstrosity with a new replacement monstrosity. As with everything else, Democrats demand a single comprehensive healthcare plan. The Republican failure to have a united front on a clearly articulated Obamacare replacement plan provided fuel for Democrats and the media on both the left and right to oppose Obamacare repeal and replacement. Consequently, doubt and speculation rather than clarity prevailed. Going forward the question remains,  “Will Republicans ‘snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?'” Can Republicans solve the nation’s healthcare issues?

A group of people standing in front of a heart.
We the People need Real Healthcare Solutions Now not Obamacare lite.

In my opinion, the Republican slogan concerning Obamacare should be Real Healthcare Solutions Now. This would place the important issues at the forefront. The slogan, “Real Healthcare Solutions Now, would provide emphasis for a campaign to verbalize exactly how healthcare should be improved and perfected both in relation to the pre-Obamacare healthcare environment and the healthcare failures caused by Obamacare. A monster bill or law covering all the ills of healthcare would be counterproductive and ineffective in solving all the pre-Obamacare and Obamacare caused issues.

Two critical issues that plagued healthcare before Obamacare are transparency within the medical profession in relation to quality and cost of healthcare and tort reform. Providing the people of the United States with high quality, economical healthcare would require that each of these issues be effectively addressed. First, the medical profession should be totally transparent or patients will never have control of their own healthcare. Patients should be able to easily determine and compare the quality and cost of care that they would get from every doctor, analytical procedures, and clinics and hospitals where they will receive care. CBS News reported that clinics, hospitals, and their emergency rooms utilize some specialists and practitioners, like anesthesiologists, that are out of network and not covered by the same insurance plan. The report noted that the patients were not informed about the situation and were billed for the entire cost. Such a situation should be illegal. If a hospital or clinic is covered by your insurance, all of the practitioners at the facility should be part of each plan. The cost and quality of prescription drugs should also be easily comparable for the general public. Unfortunately the medical profession has succeeded in getting state and federal laws that make this type of information difficult for the public to access so that they can ensure the quality and cost-effectiveness of care they receive.

Secondly, tort reform is essential to control healthcare costs. As a former big truck driver, I am a perfect example of this issue. After a fairly severe heart episode, safety laws required a physical annually rather than biannually. At that time, laws specified that the annual physical include a $700 stress test, treadmill. However, my cardiologist would not approve my physical without a $3,500 myocardial stress test where the law simply specifies a treadmill. The difference, charged to insurance, was necessary, from my cardiologist perspective, to mitigate potential litigation if I was subsequently involved in a heart related traffic accident. I also have two all metal artificial hips which, in a small minority of patients, can cause surrounding tissue damage and prosthetic replacement. The daily barrage of attorney advertisements seeking clients for litigation regarding medication side effects and in my case the artificial hip side effects demonstrate the great potential increase in costs associated with litigation. It is not difficult to imagine how much this tort environment increases the cost of healthcare. Healthcare laws should address these issues.

In my opinion, every individual and family in the United States of America should be legally responsible for payment of their healthcare costs. This could be accomplished by my proposal for “The Healthcare Responsibility Act.” Admittedly, it is a wild and crazy idea to think that everybody should be legally responsible for their healthcare and the healthcare of their family. Under this concept, there would be no healthcare insurance mandate; but individuals and families would secure healthcare insurance if they knew that they would be legally responsible for all their healthcare costs whether or not they were responsible enough to secure healthcare insurance and/or fund a healthcare savings account. To ensure their financial future, the young and healthy would secure state or federally defined legal minimum health insurance coverage. This concept would help insure that the insurance provider pools had adequate funding to cover those with pre-existing conditions and children under 26 years of age with their parents insurance.

As a young, 70 year old geezer, my pre-Obamacare healthcare experience was extensive. Before we lost her, my wife and I were never without family healthcare insurance which covered ACL replacements on each of our son’s knees, surgeries on both of my knees and two fingers, my initial heart care, and her cancer care which exceeded $250,000. Subsequently, in New Mexico, while attempting to start a ministry/business, my heart condition precluded private individual healthcare insurance. My premium through the New Mexico Health Insurance Alliance (NMHIA), a state run program for uninsurable entrepreneurs, was nearly $700 a month. Premiums were high because the pool was limited to uninsurable entrepreneurs with businesses in New Mexico, a rather small group. Monthly copays for three branded prescriptions totaled $120, and practitioner copays ranged from $10 to $40 per visit. In my opinion as a citizen, healthcare insurance was my responsibility. Both of my hip replacements, abdominal hernia repair, and prostate cancer surgery were covered under this Insurance totaling less than $1250 in copays. Without this insurance these procedures would have cost between $250,000-$500,000. NMHIA is an example of a state licensed healthcare insurance co-op or pool limited to an individual state resulting in very high premium costs unlike the suggestion for insurance co-operatives discussed below.

The best way to ensure high quality cost effective healthcare is an open, transparent, free market healthcare system. Establishment of the rules and regulations, as well as cost administration, should be a state by state responsibility because the population health status, cost of living, and business costs vary in each state. Suggestions abound to achieve this goal. In the individual and single family healthcare market, allowing healthcare insurance policy coverage without state by state restrictions and allowing every provider to sell policies in all 50 states, is one suggestion. To accomplish this option, the national government would need to mandate uniform regulations among all 50 states. In a mobile society like ours, this idea would also allow complete transportability between states. In addition, allowing individuals and single families to form interstate insurance co-operatives would allow these groups to compete more effectively in the insurance market place. The same rules should also apply to employer provided health insurance which would probably reduce employer costs for large multi-state corporations with high interstate employee transfer rates.

In my opinion, the solutions for our healthcare issues being proposed will never create a truly patient doctor centered free market healthcare system. Currently, each component of healthcare has different rules and regulations. Only a small portion of the total healthcare market was covered by Obamacare. The total healthcare segment of our economy includes employer based healthcare which is over 50% of the market, Veterans Administration healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, and the uninsured. Each has it problems and patients do not control their care in any. Until problems of the whole system are addressed by a true free market solution , problems will continue.

A healthcare plan that includes the requirement for healthcare cost and quality transparency, tort reform, creation of interstate insurance purchasing power, insurance co-operatives, and legal requirement for individual and family responsibility for all the costs of their healthcare would provide significant steps toward providing healthcare that is patient based rather than more costly, ineffective government mandated healthcare plans. Passage of legislation covering each component of healthcare should result in a more perfect healthcare system than a single healthcare omnibus bill, an Obamacare like disaster. Republicans in Congress and the Trump Administration must quickly settle on a unified, patient centered healthcare plan, or they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We the People need
Real Healthcare Solutions Now.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

DO DEMOCRATS SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION?

 

It is my opinion that Democrats support the Constitution only when the Constitution or the Federal Courts decisions support and provide an advantage in promoting their agenda. Democrats rarely defend the actual  words of the Constitution, as defined when it was written, the “original intent” or “manifest tenor” since they believe that the Constitution should reflect current mores of our society. In other words, the Democrat Party and the left are at best Constitutional pragmatists. President Obama clearly demonstrated that he did not support and defend the Constitution when he repeatedly used Executive Orders to by-pass the Legislative Branch because he was unable to get his agenda items passed by congress. Many of his orders were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court proving his failure to support the Constitution.

A large fire and smoke cloud is coming from the top of the twin towers.
Democrats support for the peaceful transfer of Constitutional power was weak at the Inauguration of President Trump.

The 30% of the Democrat members of the House of Representatives who did not attend the Inauguration of Donald Trump also demonstrate, by their behavior, that they do not support or defend the Constitution. Actions speak louder than words. Each Inauguration where the new President comes from a different political party is a peaceful, Constitutional transfer of power. Failure to attend the Inauguration demonstrates that these Democrat Representatives do not support the provisions of the Constitution that provide for this peaceful transfer of power. Each Inauguration is a celebration of our Constitution not a celebration of the next President. Inauguration attendance demonstrates whether or not these Democrats support the Constitution and defend the processes set up to ensure the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to the other.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

NEWS NARRATIVES STIMULATE FAKE NEWS

 

A large fire and smoke cloud is coming from the top of the twin towers.
News narratives stimulate fake news; and opinion reported as fact is fake news.

News narratives stimulate fake news. The fact that news agencies formulate a narrative designed to guide public opinion, including political news, is general knowledge. Accordingly, news stories are selected or rejected to promote or reinforce the “narrative. Conversely, stories that do not support the “narrative are eliminated or buried in the back of the publication, or buried at the end of a report behind other irrelevant information.

The issue is not new. The narrative of the news media concerning the Viet Nam War was changed after the North Viet Nam Army and Viet Con Communist forces launched the Tet Offensive.

In February 1968,  in the wake of the Tet Offensive, the respected TV journalist Walter Cronkite, who had been a moderate and balanced observer of the war’s progress, announced that it seemed ‘more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.'”

Walter Cronkite down played the fact that the Tet Offensive was repelled by United States and South Vietnamese forces suffering one tenth the casualties of the attackers. Although South Vietnamese forces proved quite capable during the counter offensive and communist forces were severely weakened, the Tet Offensive was characterized as a defeat. To me, this misrepresentation of facts constituted fake news. The news changed the perception of the war and drastically increased anti-war sentiment in the United States. Decades later North Vietnamese generals admitted that they were defeated but understood that they only had to delay long enough for the anti-war sentiment in the United States to end the war politically giving them victory.

In my opinion, Walter Cronkite should have ended his nightly news program saying, That’s the way we choose to portray it month, day, year, instead of saying, That’s the way it was month, day, year. The same is true for most news today.

Fake news has been in the news lately as well. Once a news narrative is posited, fake news is often started on Internet social media sites like Facebook,  Twitter, or other Internet News outlets. Unfortunately, traditional standards of Journalism such as source vetting and multiple source conformation, do not apply at many of these sources. Some of these Fake News stories originate with unfriendly foreign governments, like Russia or North Korea, intent on manipulating public opinion in our political process, foreign affairs, socio-economic system, and culture. Fake News has been treated as legitimate news by traditional print and mainstream broadcast news agencies without proper vetting when the fraud fits the Narrative.

Legitimate pols can become fake news, or least a misrepresentation of public opinion, when specific responses fitting the narrative are emphasized because the answers fit the narrative. Pols can also be manipulated by the order and nature of the questions leading respondents to the desired headline opinion that fits the narrative of the news agency involved. In this situation, the headline and first section of the story, or news, reinforces the narrative. Opinions that mitigate or modify the narrative are buried later in the story or left out hoping the public does not go to the complete pols for a more realistic view of the opinions of the entire pol creating  fake news through omission.

The 24/7 “news” cycle that evolved with cable television introduced an abundance of editorial style expert analysis, opinion programs, and opinion segments as part of hard news programs. Internet news outlets are also heavily involved in editorial and opinion writing. Some influential bloggers also get involved in news dissemination, analysis, and opinion. These outlets often blur the distinction between news, editorials, and opinion. When the editorial opinion writing and punditry matches the narrative, opinion and expert analysis often turns into headlines and lead stories. This is especially true when the editorials and opinions concern the outcome of elections, the future of the economy, a corporation, how healthcare will change, or what the tax plan will contain, etc. This news is often just hours and pages of viral speculation. In many situations the punditry from one outlet is subsequently debated on another outlet. When opinion is reported as fact, the result is, in reality, fake news.

In my opinion, the majority of news outlets in the United States and the world are dominated by progressives and disseminate news based on the progressive narrative. This narrative opposes Biblical Christianity, the Biblical traditional family, reduction or elimination of  influence of Christianity on our culture, personal responsibility and morality, and favors progressive culture, economic principles, and centralized government over Biblical Christianity, capitalistic economic concepts, and limited government.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

CAPITALISTS, CAPITALISM’S PROBLEM

 

Capitalists capitalism’s problem is the result of the behavior of some capitalists throughout history, call them Godless immoral capitalists. The behavior of a few capitalists provides evidence for the need to control the raw nature of man according to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Smith observed that controlling this raw nature is one of the few reasons for government involvement in commerce and industry. Abuse of the labor force was the rule during the much of the Industrial Revolution. These Godless immoral capitalists abused child laborers, working women, and laborers in general who lacked viable employment alternatives. The result was a rapid rise in the labor movement which included Marxists who formed communist and socialist parties throughout the industrialized Western world. Over time, progressives and liberals combined forces with Marxists to form the modern political left.

Evidence for the statement, capitalists capitalism’s problem, in relation to socialism.

The behavior of Godless immoral capitalists is continually cited as evil and prima facie evidence that societies based on Marxist philosophy are better for humanity. Pictures of child laborers fill our textbooks as examples of the evils of capitalism. Factory fires where exits were chained on the outside to prevent laborers from taking unauthorized breaks resulting in extremely high labor casualties are cited as additional examples of the evils of capitalism. Unethical and often illegal business schemes such as Enron and Ponzi schemes like that of Bernie Madoff are also cited as evidence of the evils of capitalism.  Unfortunately, in developing Third World countries abusive labor practices still occur.

Consequently, capitalists capitalism’s problem remain a major issue in the debate between capitalism and the Marxist alternatives of the left, socialism, and the progressive and liberal movements. It is interesting that while Godless immoral capitalist’s behavior is highlighted by the left as abuses of capitalism, the behavior the communist regimes of the old Soviet Union, now Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela, among others, are totally ignored by the left in these discussions.

The ratio of the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation within each corporation is an additional issue in which capitalists capitalism’s problem is paramount. Several internet sources indicate that the ratio was approximately 20 to 1 in 1950, 40 to 1 in 1980, 120 to 1 in 2000, and 200 to 1 in 2014. In a very few corporations, the compensation ratio now approaches 500 to 1. To put this in perspective, during the same period of time executive compensation increased 1000% while employee compensation increased only 11%. From the perspective of the left, the compensation differential is most concerning in the industrial manufacturing and service industries. This is especially true in situations involving labor unions or the desire of employees to join the labor movement. The following statement can be found in the online Bloomberg article, CEO Pay 1,795-to-1 Multiple of Wages Skirts U.S. Law:

When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel, said Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, in an interview. ‘It’s not that either hates labor, or wants to crush their lives. They just don’t care.’

The statement, They just don’t care concerning corporate executive’s attitude about the executive to employee compensation ratio seems to qualify as the raw nature of man. Such indifference could also be considered Godless immoral capitalist behavior, a prime example of capitalist capitalism’s problem.

During the formative years of the labor movement, the raw nature of man reared its ugly head in the form of riots resulting in property damage and human suffering. The Communist Party in the US was so deeply involved in the violence of the labor movement that federal law precludes participation in labor leadership by members of the Communist Party. This behavior included violence between competing labor unions for membership. Labor union violence continued past the middle of the 20th century. It is safe to say that Godless immoral behavior is unfortunately endemic to the human condition.

The phrase Godless immoral capitalism was coined for its relationship to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Contrary to popular opinion on the left, religion and morality have been essential in the rise of the United States of America to its position of prominence in the world today. In his Farewell Address to the Nation, the Father of our Country, George Washington, said:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. “ The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. “ A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity (happiness). “ Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. “ Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure “ reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence, — Who can doubt that in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?…

In my opinion, most of the current societal problems in our nation, including capitalists capitalism’s problem, are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition about Religion and Morality.

Does the Judeo-Christian heritage of the Founders and Biblical Christianity substantiate the advice given to the United States of America by the Father of our nation? The Bible does provide numerous scriptures related to the source of wealth and the requirement to treat laborers fairly. Some relevant New International Version Bible scriptures follow:

But remember the Lord your God for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth. (Deuteronomy 8:18a).

Do not take advantage of a hired man who is (comparatively) poor and needy. Pay him because he is counting on it. Otherwise you will be guilty of sin (Deuteronomy 24: 14-15).

Honor the Lord with your wealth. (Proverbs 3:9a).

So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and fatherless, but do not fear Me says the Lord Almighty (Malachi 3:5).

Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5).

The worker deserves his wages (Luke 10:7b and 1Timothy 5:18b).

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation (Romans 4:4).

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you. (1Thessalonians 5:12).

The Godless immoral capitalist behavior, capitalists capitalism’s problem, previously described, including the corporate executive to labor salary ratios are inconsistent with the advice of George Washington and the cited Scriptures.

In my opinion, many of the Marxist left’s objections to capitalists capitalism’s problem are justified. Prior to the early 1900’s, treatment of the labor force, including women and children, was consistent with what I call Godless immoral capitalism. Similarly, the violent behavior of the labor force as they sought to organize themselves in their effort to secure better wages and benefits and working conditions was equally Godless and immoral. The behavior of both sides in the labor management struggles was the epitome of the raw nature of man. Nevertheless, the capitalistic economy that evolved in the United States developed into the largest and most successful economy in history. Our nation also became the most potent military, political and economic power of the 20th century. In the 21st century, everything from our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional capitalistic political economic system is being challenged by the left.

For the last 200 years, the philosophical leadership of the left has worked to gain dominance in virtually every form of communication in the Western world including the United States. The left’s first objective was to marginalize Christianity in society. Second, the left established an educational dictatorship in the entire public education system. Third, the left has learned to use both our United States and State judicial systems, which lack effective checks and balances, to thwart the will of We the People when the left is unable to accomplish their goals through the legislative process. Progressive ideology dominates all forms of the news media, telecommunication entertainment, movie and theater entertainment, and the advertising industry which is filled with subtle social, political, and economic messages. The cinema graphic industry produces works filled with stories of excesses and adverse impacts of capitalism on society and the environment. Millennials are probably the first generation that have been exposed to progressive curricula from preschool to PH.D. and the media generated progressive agenda.

In light of the fact that Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democrat party nomination for president, the philosophically Marxist progressive agenda is gaining wide popularity with younger citizens. In polls, a surprising number of millennials favored socialism over capitalism. For millennials, capitalists capitalism’s problem is ingrained in their psyche. Wealth redistribution through heavy taxation of the œ1% is their answer to all their problems. The wealth of the 1% will pay for their higher education, eliminate their college loans, subsidize their healthcare, save Medicare and Social Security, and save the planet. They see corporate executives secure prescription monopolies for the purpose, in their mind, of securing drastic increases in prescription prices. They look at the rise in the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation ratio, stagnant or falling labor compensation compared to the unprecedented increase in corporate executive compensation; and millennials are revolted. Finally, millennials hear statements regarding the executive compensation to employee salary ratio indicating that these executives no longer ask the question, How much is in enough? but now ask How much can I get? When millennials are told that corporate executives just don’t care, they conclude that capitalists capitalism’s problem is a good reason to reject capitalism as a fair economic system.

No one can actually speak for them; but, based on remarks from his Farewell Address to the Nation, that George Washington and the other Founders as well as their Biblical Christian morality would indicate that capitalists need to make real changes in their behavior. In light of the fact that the Marxist or socialist, progressive, liberal agenda dominates all aspects of culture in the United States, it seems that capitalist leaders should begin evaluating their decisions and behavior in relation to solid moral and ethical standards.

Although it is the fiduciary responsibility of corporate executives to maximize profits for shareholders, it might be appropriate to start asking do our decisions benefit both our stockholders, and equally important do our decisions benefit our employees as efficiently as our executives have benefited from their compensation. This change in attitude toward employee management relationships would provide a positive employment atmosphere and could even have a positive effect on productivity. Asking the question, is this decision moral and ethical could also lead to reductions in potential environmental problems caused by manufacturing, energy production, and reduce land, air, and water pollution. To accommodate this change in approach, corporate boards of directors would also have to allow executives latitude to affect change.

The system of constitutional capitalism that has evolved in the United States since the Revolutionary war has given our nation the most potent political socioeconomic system of governance in history. Unfortunately, conservative and capitalistic institutions have failed to recognize the all-inclusive and pervasive influence of the left in our society. The left is now the dominant force training and evangelizing the youth of the United States of America. The cultural mores and ideology of the left dominate our education system, information system, and economic ideology of our young people.

Donald Trump is not a conservative. Conservatives cannot become complacent simply because he is a Republican. He was a pragmatic, innovative, populist. Capitalists, corporate executives, and conservatives cannot assume that the results of the last several elections, the dramatic shift to Republican office holders, indicates movement towards conservative and Republican principles and ideology in our nation. Polls regarding the attitudes of millennials show a strikingly different philosophical and ideological attitude of the next several generations of voters. Conservatives and Republicans cannot assume that these voters will always be undependable Democrat voters in the future. From the perspective of young voters completely immersed in Marxist and progressive philosophy, capitalists capitalism’s problem is a reality in their mind. The welfare of the middle and lower classes will determine the political socioeconomic future of the United States of America.

A relevant question is, How can conservatives and capitalists change the negative populist  perception about capitalism that prevails in the minds of a growing percentage of current and future and young voters in the United States? The answer to that question will determine the future of the United States of America.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

RUSSIAN HACKERS EXPOSED DEMOCRAT CORRUPTION AND DISDAIN

 

A woman in red speaks at a podium.
Russian hackers revealed Democrat corruption and disdain for our citizens and the “deplorable class.”

Russian hackers revealed a great deal about the left’s corruption and disdain for our citizens in what Democrats define as the “deplorable class.” WikiLeaks and our own news media, which provided the leaked information to voters, exposed the modus operandi  of the left and the Democrat Party. Additionally, the Democrat Party must, if they hope to remain a viable political force, look into its soul and change its behavior to regain the respect of the constituents they lost in the 2016 election.

Be that as it may, the United States must formulate a realistic plan to combat foreign cyber warfare against our citizens, businesses, and government including our political process and elections. Our national government must develop a robust cyber warfare strategy that provides both impenetrable defensive and unstoppable offensive capabilities. The desired result would be cyber peace through cyber strength.

The hacked 2016 election Democrat campaign Emails exposed the corruption and disdain  of the leadership of the Democrat Party at the highest levels. The Emails showed that the Democrat Party leadership was going to do everything possible to ensure that Hillary Clinton was the party nominee for the Presidency. The Emails also showed that the party leadership was willing to conspire with the news media to give Hillary Clinton the upper hand during at least one presidential debate since the Clinton campaign was given at least one debate question in advance of the debate. This act also demonstrated the bias corruption and disdain of our news media. Each individual in the United States should be asking whether this behavior was amoral, unethical, unlawful, or anarchistic. We the People must demand better; or we are also complicit by tolerating such behavior.

The last two presidential candidates of the Democrat Party have placed a large part of We the People of the United States into a Basket of Deplorables, as Hillary Clinton described us. President Obama disparaged We the People of the fly over states as people clinging to our guns and Bibles, his characterization of We the People in the left’s Basket of Deplorables. For one claiming to be Christian, his opinion of Biblical Christianity is alarming to this Biblical Christian. Both candidates exhibited their mental corruption and disdain for the political process and We the People.

Finally, the anarchism displayed by the left following the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States will only serve to solidify Deplorable Class support for him. Their demonstrations which at times turned into riots, their refusal to accept the election results, and their irrational attempts to change votes in the Electoral College show their hypocrisy, corruption and disdain for the Deplorable Class and the Constitution. For those who understand history, the Bolshevik nature of their actions is cause for great concern. The actions of the left show their true motivation and vision for the future of the United States of America.
We are at America’s Crossroad.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

A FLAWED CONSTITUTION SOLUTION

CONSTITUTION SOLUTION CONTENTS

A Constitution solution is badly needed by We the People of the United States of America. On Monday July 29, 2024, President Biden proposed sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court of the United States requiring at least two Constitutional Amendments. Apparently, Vice-President Harris and Democrats also support President Biden’s proposal. Neither the current proposal nor “court packing,” increasing the number of SCOTUS members, will repair the flaw in our Constitution. The flaw in our Constitution is that it does not provide meaningful checks or balances on decisions rendered by Federal Judges at every level. For at least the last 100 years, both major political parties, progressives, and conservatives have complained that some federal court decisions were “unconstitutional,” failed to reflect the will of their constituents, or the “people.” Such decisions simply become the “law of the land,” and each side complained.  In my opinion, the best solution is a Constitutional Amendment that provides a method to “override” federal court decisions that can be initiated by either the Executive or Legislative branches of our government.

Despite this issue, the Founders of our nation had a profound, providential vision for the future of the United States of America. They based their vision on the fact that the people of this nation shared a common Judeo-Christian heritage. That heritage included a common religion, a common moral and ethical code, a common industrious nature based on the colonization of a new world with new and unknown challenges, and common participation in a successful revolutionary war fought against one of the leading military powers on earth.   The faith of the Fathers of this nation in its people allowed them to frame a constitution based on limited government and maximum freedom for the people. Freedom for the people is dependent on shared moral and ethical values, virtue. The Framers demonstrated faith in the governed by their choice of the first three words of the constitution, “We the People.”

THE SCOTUS POWER DEBATE

The lack of Constitutional checks and balances on the Judicial Branch has been debated from the time of ratification debates to modern debates over judicial activism which Constitutional conservative argue requires a Constitution solution. In The Federalist Papers, supporters of the proposed Constitution inferred that judicial decisions consistent with the manifest tenor, context and meaning, of the Constitution is good behavior as a jurist. In The Federalist No. 78 states, Alaxander Hamilton wrote,

Courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.

In The Federalist No. 81, he wrote,

In the first place, there is not one syllable in the plan under consideration, which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution

Justices of the federal judiciary no longer agree with the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who stated in The Federalist No. 49,

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power and it is from the people themselves; who, as the grantors of the commission (Constitution), can alone declare its true meaning and enforce its observance.

Finally, in The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton discussed impeachment of Federal judges writing:

And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check (on the Judiciary), which the power of instituting impeachments would give to (the Legislative Branch) upon the members of the judicial department. This alone is complete security. There never can be danger that the judges would hazard the united resentment of the body (Legislative Branch) entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means (impeachment) of punishing their presumption by degrading (removing) them (judges) from their stations (the court).

The Framers intended that federal judges should rule based on the Manifest Tenor of the Constitution” and its amendments. They further inferred that decisions not adhering to the manifest tenor of the Constitution would not be consistent with good Behavior as a jurist. Finally, they argued that judges issuing rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution should be impeached for their judicial actions. Since Judges have never been impeached for lack of this “good Behavior,” we need a Constitution solution.

In the Anti-Federalist, articles opposed to ratification of the Constitution, Robert Yates argued that the threat of impeachment for rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution” did not provide realistic checks or balances on the Judiciary. President Thomas Jefferson disagreed with the power to rule on the Constitutionality of laws given to the Federal Judiciary by Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Jefferson wrote,

If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide], and it would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Abraham Lincoln expressed similar concerns in his First Inaugural Address as follows:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government in to the hands of that eminent tribunal (Supreme Court).As a result, some would say, we live under a dictatorship of the federal judiciary, an oligarchy.”

The debate over the power of the federal judiciary has raged from the Constitutional Convention to this day. Is it time to solve the problem? In my opinion, the time is now.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL

A page of the constitution with the words amp;quot; circle iii amp;quot;.

In the absence of impeachment, the only remedy, or flawed Constitution solution We the People have for an unrestrained Federal Judiciary, is a Constitutional Amendment. The proposed Amendment should allow any member of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, or the President of the United States to introduce legislation that would override any Federal Court decision at either the appellate or Supreme Court level.

The Amendment should have specific procedural guidelines, a reasonable timeline for action, and priority over other legislative activity in both houses of congress. It is my suggestion that this Amendment should include the following procedures. A “judicial decision override” bill, named after the court case in question, such as “Roe v. Wade Override,” would be introduced by a legislator in their house of the legislature.  A Presidential “override” bill should be introduced in both houses of congress at the same time. The proposed Amendment must preclude a Senate filibuster at every stage of deliberations and voting. Within five working days of “override” bill introduction, each house of the legislature would conduct a vote, without debate, to start the “override” process which would occur only when both houses agreed to consider the “override.” Next, legislators in each House would have two weeks to prepare testimony for and against the “override.” Preparation of “override” testimony would occur concurrently with other legislative activities. In the next week, proponents and opponents of the “override” from both houses of the legislature would plan their testimony concurrently with other legislative responsibilities. During the next two weeks, testimony for and against the “override” would occur. In the first week, one house would hear testimony from the opposition to the “override” while the other house would hear testimony from supporters of the “override.” In the second week, testimony roles would be reversed in the two houses of the legislature. During the following week, each house would hold floor debates on the “override.” Each house would vote on the “override” at the end of the week of floor debate. If the “override” achieves a simple majority in both houses of the Legislative Branch, the bill would go to the President for signature resulting in a successful federal judicial decision “override.” In the case of a Presidential veto, a two-thirds majority of both houses would overrule the veto resulting in a successful federal judicial decision “override.” The vote to overrule a Presidential veto should occur in both houses of the legislature the first working day after the veto without debate.

One contentious issue related to the proposed Constitutional Amendment is its impact on previous court decisions enacted outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution which many have called Judicial Activism. My suggestion is for the Amendment to establish a joint legislative committee to review previous court decisions. This committee should have a limited time frame for actions, one to three years. Recommendation for Congressional action to reverse standing Federal Court decisions should follow the process described above.

In my opinion, a Constitutional Amendment of this nature is needed since the Federal Courts have shown their disrespect for the will of We the People. Our courts show disrespect by overturning both State Constitutional Amendments and state referenda passed by a majority of We the People in several states. Court decisions also demonstrate disrespect for We the People when they ignore the “manifest tenor of the constitution” ratified by We the People. The proposed Amendment is a true flawed Constitution solution.

I still believe our Constitution is the best ever conceived throughout world history. However, We the People have allowed the Federal Courts to act as an oligarchy for decades. Is it now time to correct its one major flaw? In my opinion,

We need an Amendment providing a flawed Constitution solution!

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

IT IS TIME FOR “THE HEALTHCARE RESPONSIBILITY ACT”

 

A puzzle with dna and a missing piece
Healthcare is an individual responsibility not a Constitutional right. “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would settle the the issue.

If I cannot buy fire insurance after my house burns down, why is it my right to buy healthcare insurance after surviving a heart attack? In my opinion, my healthcare is my responsibility. Free care is not my right! Every individual and family is responsible for their Health and the costs associated with that care, not the government. I am a lower middle class young geezer who always carried health insurance for my family. We did without to ensure we had health insurance which paid for at least $500,000-$750,000 in family care.

The fact that many healthy young people in the United States do not feel the need to have health insurance is one of the main problems regarding funding health insurance and care. Many people in this group choose to pay the relatively small fine rather than buy health insurance. The fine is well below the amount they would pay in premiums. As a result, programs are underfunded, insurance companies are unprofitable, and withdrawing from state insurance pools. Companies remaining in the pools are forced to increase premiums and/or deductibles and co-pays to remain profitable. The situation is untenable for the long term. It seems to me that this problem will remain regardless of the solution  attempted next. People will not pay for something they think is unnecessary.

One possible solution could be called “The Healthcare Responsibility Act.” This proposed solution would make health a personal responsibility with severe legal, financial consequences for the irresponsible. Under this plan, financial responsibility for healthcare would be a legal responsibility for every individual and family in the United States; but purchase of health insurance would not be a legal requirement. The solution would provide a wide range of options for the young and healthy and those of all ages with severe health issues, like me. As an example, minimum, responsible health insurance for a young healthy person could be defined as catastrophic health insurance and a minimum health saving account to cover routine medical needs for 1 to 2 years. Each state should define responsible coverage levels based on their cost of living .

“The Healthcare Responsibility Act,” as envisioned, would be part of the legislation to repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would have two components. The first component would be a federal law outlining the responsibilities of United States citizens and the consequences for failure to meet minimum responsibilities set by each state under the act. The national act could also include components such as guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions and covering family members up to the age of 26, although the act could result in economical coverage for younger citizens below age 26.

The second component of “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would be to delegate responsibilities for the definition of “healthcare responsibility” to each of the 50 states based on their individual income levels and cost of living. Consequently, states would have the authority to define the minimum level of responsible health insurance coverage their citizens would be required to maintain, minimum health savings account amounts required, or a sufficient combination of the two. Each state would also define the minimum income level where individuals and families would be responsible for their healthcare costs.  The threshold income levels would be based on overall state income levels, the number of people insured, available health insurance plan costs, and the cost of healthcare in each state.

This would be accomplished when each state determined the percentage of individual or family gross income paid for healthcare costs that constitutes an unacceptable financial burden. Individuals or families for which health insurance constitutes a state defined unacceptable burden could receive subsidies. Low income individuals or families could be eligible for Medicaid or a similar totally private program. At every level of income, individuals would be responsible to either enroll and contribute the applicable payments for the health insurance available and/or health savings accounts based on income.

Failure to be enrolled or purchase appropriate health insurance or maintain an adequate health savings account would be deemed irresponsible behavior. Under this law, this failure to maintain adequate healthcare financing would constitute a violation of the law. The individual or family would be fully responsible to pay all the healthcare costs for the care they received. They would not be allowed to use bankruptcy to avoid the repayment of costs even if they paid part of their gross income for the rest of their life. Additionally, their estate would be liable to its full extent for the repayment.

A cartoon of a grim reaper and an old man
Everyone should be responsible to secure the means or subsidies to pay for their healthcare. “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would mandate personal payment for healthcare costs.

“The Healthcare Responsibility Act”, as proposed, has extremely severe penalties for irresponsible healthcare behavior and actions. These consequences would also make it irresponsible for any individual not to secure minimal levels of health savings and insurance policies. Failure to act responsibly regarding health and all of the costs associated with care would place both individuals and their family’s future in financial jeopardy. In view of the consequences, it seems that no one with a sound mind would fail to act responsibly in relation to their own or their families’ healthcare. With virtually all of our nation’s population insured, the cost of caring for the previously uninsured would no longer increase the premiums for the insured. This should reduce costs for everyone. In my opinion, these benefits would also be a huge step forward in solving the problem of inadequate funding for health insurance corporations.

“The Healthcare Responsibility Act” is suggested as an alternative for solving part of our health insurance and health financing problem. Every good and effective economic plan should consider all the alternatives, including the wild and crazy idea that everybody should be responsible for their individual and family healthcare.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.