The 10 years that changed the path of America

The following is a Position Paper of The Jacksonian Party.

This is not the decade you are thinking of, unless you have been paying very careful attention, and even then the full scope and impact of it have not been felt. A decade where America was involved in War but would not fully fight it, when the President would alter course for future generations, when Congress would accumulate power to itself and remove some from the People. A decade of vibrancy and change, after which the Nation would step into a new world order and try to expunge the thought of war from its mind. This was the decade that would forever change what it meant to be an American and start to alienate the People from its Government.

That decade is the one from 1909-1919.

In 1909 the US had called for an International Opium Conference to start to limit the opium trade. This had been spurred on by American missionaries in the Far East that had seen the social havoc of opium in China and the social decay of it there along with disrupting the counter-insurgency work of the Philippines by the US. The Hague Convention of 1912 would lead to international agreements on limiting or eliminating the opium trade. This Conference would lead to the very first legislation in the US to curb drugs: Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. This law was the very first in US history in which Congress tried to decide what an individual could or could not ingest in the way of drugs. This was done due to that missionary zeal and the feeling that such drugs were ruining the Nation as a whole. And it is hard to see where opium in cough syrup was a great help to much of anyone, since it hid tuberculosis. The use of it by mothers on children was a problem and should have been restricted by the States. This feeling by the prohibitionists to outlaw such was one that ran strongly religious communities, which saw the overseas use of such drugs and worked to marginalize or eliminate them for use in the US. Still, it was under Treaty obligations that the Harrison Act was promulgated, to uphold the US signing on to the 1912 Hague Convention. The far reaching effects of this are felt to this day with organized crime and Narco-terrorism rife in those areas that grow plants that lead to making narcotics and makes it such a profitable business in the criminal realm to this day. For the first time a social movement to limit the rights of Citizens had gained a foothold in America after the Civil War.

Also started in 1909 was Amendment XVI to the US Constitution that would allow Congress to collect income tax. Prior to that the US used a system of property taxes and tariffs to generate income, but the first was seen as being unwieldy and the movement to income tax was pushed by a view that the wealthy were not paying their share of the burden in the Nation. While it has done that, it has also been broadened to include such things as tips, wagers on bets, and even finding something of value and selling it. All of that now falls within the power first given to Congress once this Amendment was ratified in 1913. Until that point in time taxes were levied via apportionment to the States via the census so that it would fall equally upon all in the Union. Also in this era was the Clayton Antitrust Act that would further limit monopoly power and cover problems with business sales and mergers that would unduly concentrate market power as an extension of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These were aimed at reducing the power of wealthy individuals, but also put power in the hands of Congress to apportion taxation as it saw fit upon income and put limitations on how much market power a business can accumulate. While this may have made collecting taxes 'easier' the question of if such would actually lead to a 'fairer' assessment of taxes is still debated. With the ability of wealthy individuals to get loopholes and tax havens and other means to gain income outside of the income routes, the burden of this has fallen to the working class, by and large, although the wealthiest still do pay the largest amount in taxes. In the modern era the movement back to a more 'flat tax' which removes all loopholes is one that continues to be seen as more fair, even if graduated by income, as it removes the power of lobbyists to unduly influence legislation on behalf of the wealthy.

In 1911 the movement for the direct election of Senators by the public was put into what would become Amendment XVII which would also be ratified in 1913. Here the ill was seen as bribery and corruption at the State level to gain Senate seats, and these problems continued on for decades. Some States ran referenda to elect Senators and the election date was also regularized to that of the General Election. Still, the ability to 'wheel and deal' at the State level to gain Senate seats was seen as a major problem by the majority, and this Amendment was made to allow for direct selection by popular vote. This also changed the balance of power so that both Houses of Congress were now in hands of direct election instead of by dispersing power to the States and the People for the Senate and House respectively. The concentration of power in Washington via those that could win and continue to win these elections changed the turnover rate in the Senate and removed a major role for the States to play in the Federal system of governance. Previously that had been a check on Federal power via the States and a limit to the People so that more moderate voices could be heard in the Senate.

Also in 1911 came Public Law 62-5 which would permanently set the size of the House at 435 members and allow voting portion to float while keeping a set House size. With the enactment of this law in 1913, the modern Congress type would be set and the difficulties of it would take time to manifest. The first and most important of these is that as the population increased, the amount of diversity in the House remained the same. Seats would shift from State to State, instead of having States grow in their number of seats over time. Although gerrymandering or 'non-compact districts' had always been a problem, they were seen as amenable to the fact that more would be created over time. Re-draw the districts every decade and you get a different mix of communities. In a set system, the redraws come at a much lower rate and only happen due to internal shifts in proportion of population, not absolute size. With that comes House seats that become 'safe' election after election and often for decades at a time with a single member for that seat.

Finally, in 1919 would come Amendment XVIII for the Prohibition of Alcohol, and while that would be repealed, it pointed to how far social ills were seen as needing a National remedy instead of via local control. Taken as a whole, these Amendments and Public Law would greatly change the nature of representative democracy within the Republic of the United States and start a major power shift towards Washington. With that would also come the money of wealthy individuals to start influencing this new form of Government and change the outlook of the Federal system itself in that doing. Lobbying this more constant government set-up would entrench power and money over time and give affluence access to the National Government.

Changes were not only happening due to Amendments and in Congress, however, as a major change in the Executive would be brought about in this same era by Woodrow Wilson. And with President Wilson the source of the strain of American political thought that would come to bear his name was started: Wilsonianism. President Wilson would approach the world in an attempt to promulgate American commerce and ideals, in that order. He would also search to bring a re-ordering of Nations so as to avoid the scourge of war, but then have troubles addressing the problems of tyranny.

Staunchly anti-imperialist in outlook and pro-business, Woodrow Wilson would look to try and safeguard both of those during the looming war in the Europe, while trying to keep America out of the war. Running on a Neutrality platform that was isolationist in conception, Wilson won a second term in office as the War dragged on, and increased hitting more neutral shipping and Wilson then turned his decision to supporting the War which his opponent had run on during the campaign. In the previous campaign of 1912, President Wilson had supported the idea of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, which was a continuation of American evangelical tradition that had been in-place for more than a century. What had changed during that time, however, was the idea of a Christian homeland where the Jews would naturally convert via evangelism to one that would be Zionist in outlook. This too, gained support, although Jews in America, at 1912 were not so much convinced of this. The people who were convinced of it, however, were the British and their outlook and secret treaty to carve up the Ottoman Empire once the war was over to give a homeland, but not Nation to the Jews in the Middle East was presented to President Wilson in 1917.

The plan had been seen by others in the Administration who thought no good could come of it, and President Wilson, himself, when talking to Arthur Balfour, the designer of the Sykes-Picot treaty was that it would be difficult to support something that sounded like a 'brand of tea' . Wilson would characterize this as the 'old diplomacy' of the imperial powers and was aimed at selfish gain for France and Britain. While he would give tacit support of it, and Balfour announce a broadly supportive outline of the British view of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, the actual treaty was something not accepted 'as-is' by President Wilson. The reason for that is the United States would not declare war on a key German ally: The Ottoman Empire.

This set many aghast in Congress, including ex-President Teddy Roosevelt who decried *not* going to war against an ally of the Kaiser and supporting the Alliance fully. He had experienced the problems of the Ottoman Turks right after their massacre of Armenians and as word filtered out that even worse genocide was taking place Roosevelt and others in Congress were pushing hard for the entirety of those that opposed the United States should be attacked. On the political front it was beyond belief that the US would *not* attack an ally of an enemy that was seen as the 'weak link' . President Wilson put forward that as Turkey had shown no outright hostility towards the US and that the US had much in the way of trade with the Ottoman's, that putting that in danger would be very harmful to the United States. He also worried that US missionaries would then be targeted by the Ottomans in their view of clearing Europeans out of Turkey and the Empire. Also he put forward that the US could not sustain a war in Europe and the Middle East and that the Nation could not expand its military forces fast enough to have an impact in that theater of war. Finally, the start of the US oil industry in the Middle East was demonstrating the ability to generate income from the region and Wilson had hard problems going to war and seeing those resources fall into the hands of the Ottomans completely.

The view of Teddy Roosevelt and others was that if the US did *not* take part as a full partner in war, then the US would have a greatly diminished say in the peace agreements. By being a 'junior partner' unwilling to fully commit to support of Allies in war, the US would be unable to help guide the peace. Out of this conflict would come one of the most noxious of ideas held by the United States to this day: that trade is more important than freedom.

While espousing this as a 'War for Democracy' President Wilson was unable to demonstrate that the US would carry through fully on that intention. As the war ground down to a close, the worse fears of many came slowly forward as the war ended and the US was left espousing ''The Fourteen Points plan', but being unable to demonstrate the resolve to carry through on it. Even worse was that the plan, itself, in an attempt to end warfare as a valid right of Sovereign Nations, was not grounded in this world but in some other where everyone actually *does* want to live peacefully with their neighbor. The preceding century alone should have disabused President Wilson of that, but his boyhood memories of the horror and aftermath of the US Civil War drove him on a quest to end warfare.

While some of 'The Fourteen Points' are laudable, like the Abolition of Secret Treaties and Freedom of the Seas, others that saw Disarmament and attempts to decolonize areas of the world ran head-long into the agreements already forming up by the UK and France. The resulting Versailles Treaty and follow-on Treaties to address the Middle East saw little deviation from the existing UK and French outlooks as the Ottoman Empire was carved up and sections put into semi-colonial 'mandates' under the control and protection of Britain and France. The US was left fighting to support an indigenous Turkish State, a homeland for the Jews and then demurred on taking up any mandate to protect the Armenian people as President Wilson did not think that the people of the US would agree to such a foreign activity.

The final piece that would be entered into this would be the League of Nations, which would attempt to forestall future wars. What President Wilson did not see coming was that this was alien to the United States as it involved the encroachment of National Sovereignty by a foreign body that was not held accountable by any direct or democratic means. Taken as a whole, President Wilson by being unable to be considered a full and equal partner in World War I was unable to push lofty goals after that war and fought for some few gains, such as a better alignment of National boundaries to ethnic ones but that was limited, and large areas of the Middle East and borders drawn that had no recognition of indigenous peoples or their ethnic backgrounds. And immediately after signing such Treaties, Turkey, in particular, started to abrogate them and push for some ethnic enclaves, like the Kurds, to be sub-divided into these new Nations.

What comes from this are some of the major problems that would become hallmarks of US Foreign Policy and a main problem for the US in the late 20th century and into the 21st.

First is 'Realism' in Foreign Policy further aided by the 'Arabist' part of the State Department. This co-joining of commercial interests to foreign policy would push that "stability" and primarily economic stability, was more important in pushing human rights than anything else in the Middle East and globally. This was the intent and goal of President Wilson and it has failed utterly and miserably in this region known as the Middle East and has been the cause to support tyrannical regimes and dictatorships in that region and sacrificing freedom and liberty to this idea that trade will gain liberty and freedom. By keeping everything 'stable' during the Cold War, the outlook was to not rock the boat and hope for the wiles of freedom to work their way into the hearts of people there. This, patently, did *not* happen until the US finally landed a real army in the Middle East with intent to take down a tyrant. The very thing that President Wilson could not think of nor sanction as worthy of doing is the *only* thing that has given any chance for freedom in that region outside of Israel. Those that push Free Trade to free people have gotten the order *wrong* and have forgotten that the US was founded on freedom allowing for the People to have a say on trade so that it could empower them. While it may provide more in the way of material goods, such trade has not stimulated a path to freedom and has, contrarily, made it easier and cheaper for the enemies of liberty to arm against it on a global and dispersed basis. When the 'Realists' could see no end to the USSR and predicted it would be around at least until 2030 if not longer, the entire foundation of 'Realism' vaporized along with the USSR when it collapsed. Those that continue to push for this concept have not addressed the global problems that it has caused nor demonstrated how they will ever get any accountability into the trade process to help secure liberty and freedom.

Second in this is the idea of global organizations being able to remove the capability of Nations to defend themselves via disarmament. While being a very lofty goal, the concept that humanity will not look at any tool as having a capability for harm is misguided in the extreme. Further, so long as there are individuals and groups of same that look to espouse and enforce doctrine and their own oversight on others, the need to be armed for self-defense alone is necessary and right. And as even a shield may bash, so it is difficult to find any defense that cannot be used in an offensive and provocative manner. By trying to entrust this to a larger organization of States, each with their own self-interest, what is developed is the least capable system for assuring liberty and freedom and a system that allows tyrants to befuddle those trusting such systems while they continue to expand their influence via force of arms. A misguided notion is that the League of Nations failed because the US did not join it. The League of Nations had no means or methodology to succeed, and in every case where the US had *no* stake in the goings-on, which was almost all of them, the actual influence of the US would have been, effectively, nil.

The moment a Nation has a stake in anything, then their position changes, and if they have *no* stake then they have no guide for justice nor for ensuring freedom as such a decision would be seen as imposed without input from those involved. And as those involved are the ones usually under the gun, they are the ones to suffer no matter *what* the decision would be. By relying solely on international good will, without any capability to demonstrate reciprocity and assurance that agreements would be adhered to, the League of Nations like the United Nations, fails constantly in its outlook. Such organizations become stumbling blocks to finding solutions and delay solutions so that they are seen as unjust no matter what is decided. This would, ultimately, lead to Transnationalism and the concept that the Nation State has outlived its usefulness

Third, and finally, is the thorough misjudging the character of the American People in wartime. President Wilson, wishing to avoid visiting the horrors of the Civil War on a new generation, did not take into account how the US was already reacting to the massacre and holocaust of the Armenian People in the closing decades of the 19th century. And while a number of religious schools opened in the Middle East, they promulgated a form of Nationalism that would turn into Pan-Arabism. Many of the very same kings and dictators that the US would have to oppose in the middle 20th century were taught at US backed religious schools in the Middle East. That flow of information, while still having a great rose colored tint to it due to religion, was bringing home the fact that the oppression of peoples in that region was ongoing and deep. The lack of freedom and liberty was highly apparent throughout the Ottoman Empire and some of its break-away components. The disgust that the American People had for the Kaiser was also reflected upon the Ottoman Empire which was seen as a key ally to Germany. Even after seeing the horrific cost paid by Australia and others to try and invade, Congress *still* pushed for going to war against Turkey, but bowed in this Foreign Policy arena to the President. By not showing the full will to fight *for* liberty and democracy, President Wilson was asking for a half-loaf from America when America was learning that the time to set things right that it had seen as wrong was arriving. The US Armed Forces increased eightfold in under one year and proved to be an aggressive fighting force in the trenches of France and prepared to die in thousands there to help remove the grasp of a tyrant. To do so in the Middle East would have required more resources, but at the end of the war the US was left with an Army with 1 million men in it which pretty much stood the Nation alone in the world at that point in time. The fast and poor demobilization of that Army would lead to more unrest at home in following decades, but to have that sort of capability left demonstrated that America had the will and fighting power to take on much more than just the European theater of war.

By 1919 the United States would see more personal rights removed than had previously been the case all the way up to 1909, a burgeoning economy which was growing larger than any of the remaining world powers, a Congress slowly sliding into an arthritic grasp that would not change much year on year, see the groundwork for the Second World War be built upon, and after that see the slow removal of Nation State legitimacy via those that pushed that no war is worth fighting, that no tyranny is worth opposing and that free trade will free people. When combined, these things have given us a tyrannical brew that is slowly grinding down liberty and freedom at home and abroad and disenfranchising the American People from their Government as that Government drifts more into the hands of permanent power that does not care about party affiliations, just the continuance of those people and families in power.

World War I was, indeed a bad war. It was poorly fought and when the US entered into fighting it did not stand by her ideals. America fought to not lose the war, not win it and the peace thereafter. And that un-lost war remains at the root of much of our modern problems as they stem from there and get nourishment from that vile mass that marks the first genocide of the 20th century. Leaving it un-lost would encourage many more and worse ones to follow. That can either be stopped by discontinuing the things that allow this, or continue on the path we are on which will end in global genocide bought cheaply by the enemies of human liberty.

Keeping faith so that faith may be kept

The following is an outlook paper of The Jacksonian Party.

My thanks to Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna and larwyn for bringing this to my attention.

Here are a couple of things to consider in the realm of the modern world as it pertains to our lovely Congresscritters looking to give partisan support to one religious credo, sect, viewpoint or any such thing, from the US Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Seems pretty simple, that Section 2, doesn't it? The 'Privileges and Immunities' section is to ensure that laws are equitably enforced across the States and that all sorts of inter-State laws are adhered to and that extradition is forthcoming no matter what the State you ran *to* feels about the matter. This caused problems in the era of slavery, as 'free States' had to extradite known slaves back to their owners in the 'slave States'. Equitable enforcement of the Law is paramount as is given by Due Process.

This did, however, leave open loopholes in which a State could have laws that were fully Constitutional for *itself* but could *not* be broadly applied to the Citizenry of the Nation and that, indeed, individuals who shifted away from places due to persecution solely for their views and beliefs could *not* be enforced across State lines. Thus things like dissent were protected, even if there were edicts, laws and pending prosecution if an individual had to flee from oppressive laws solely based on those things.

As part of the original Philadelphia Convention of 1787, those things were the first 10 Amendments added to the Constitution known, collectively, as the Bill of Rights. You see, when the United States came into being, it did have a preponderance of Europeans who well remembered the last 200 years of their history books of what had happened in Europe over these things. The modern day evangelical movement tries to paint them all as 'Christian' when, in their variety of beliefs, the feeling back then was that 'not all Christians were the same'. The devastation of Europe due to the 30 Years' War had left it weakened enough for plague to sweep through those areas that had been over-run with military forces multiple times. This was a fratricidal and internecine struggle purely *within* Christendom over such things as Church authority and if the State should be beholden to the Church.

Mind you all sorts of wish-washy Christians and 'Christians in name only' mercenary sorts would fight on both sides of that war and, quite often, CHANGE sides without respect to religious alignment. Catholic today, Lutheran tomorrow, and something else the third day, all depending upon paymaster. By the State forcing adherence to religion *inside* the State, a change of the head of government, usually Royalty of some sort, the State *also* had a change in religion and then required *everyone* inside that State to change to that religion. The problem comes, of course, with the side-changers that changed sides at the drop of a hat thus making a mish-mash of religious affiliation and worship. And whatever the ascendant religion was, it would then seek to *expunge* the previous one from its 'flock'.

Also known as: driving them away or killing them.

What the end of that series of conflicts under the broad '30 Years War' label did was end in the Peace of Westphalia and give birth to the modern Nation State concept. This did two great things: First, and foremost, is solidified National boundaries and made them purely in the temporal realm so that States could have an official religion that is *not* dictated to by outsiders but wholly within the Nation State, and, Second, that individuals had the right to worship any of the three brands of Christianity - Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism.

The death tolls to *get* there was 15-20% of the population in those lands fought over, although when taken into consideration along with loss of growth of population, that then becomes a staggering loss to all of Europe. All of that because folks just wanted to believe the way they wanted to and *not* be forced to do so at the whim of the State. By the time you fast-forward through enlightening times and yet more and bloody wars, you get to marginalized Christian breakaway sects getting persecuted and just wanting to get the hell *away* from any State oversight of religion. The Puritans, Quakers and other diverse sects did not come here merely to found a new life, but to escape the repression and virtual death sentence that hung over them in the parts of Europe they came from. In addition the supporters of the purely secular State, that would have NO religious affiliation *also* came to the New World as *they* were not looked upon with so much glee, either.

Early colonial life was the strange hodge-podge of so many different religious outlooks that trying to blithely call them all 'Christian' when their adherence to what Christ actually *meant* to humanity varied from: Son of God all the way to 'good teacher'. From the Divine to the merely mortal and a bit more far-sighted than the rest, is what you had, and some few did not even give especial credit to the Bible beyond the idea that it imported a creative force, but that we just had problems figuring out what that force really *was*. Then you also throw in Jews, who were always looking to escape repression, and a sprinkling of 'others' that are not so well defined, and you get the feeling that these Colonies were very devout in the idea of letting each man figure it out for himself.

After the Revolution cost the new Nation 10% dead and about 15% fled to Crown colonies, a huge debt load, and a still larger question of slavery, the idea of trying to put into place multiple and diverse religiously guided States that were, themselves, non-homogeneous as to sect, was not a welcome idea. Look back at the 30 Years' War and then apply that death toll percentage to what remained and stepping off into *that* abyss was seen as suicidal. Five long and hard years with the Nation nearly failing brought forth the minds of that era that realized that they had *failed* in providing a cohesive government to do even the beginnings of just protecting individuals and they looked towards strengthening that first. And kick the can of slavery down the road for a hoped-for accommodation between the recovered States if they survived that long.

Recover the States did! But come to a good conclusion on slavery they did *not*.

What is interesting, however, is that aforementioned Bill of Rights, that I will get to in just a bit, allowed one of the greatest and most diverse flourishing of religion, mostly Christian but also a wide gamut of other and lesser religions, during that period between the Revolution and the Civil War. Just getting into the meat of Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy that looks at the US and the Middle East, one comes to the conclusion that America was starting up the greatest revolution in religious thought ever seen. This is a period I would encompass as: DIY Religion.

What is surprising is not the adherence to any single sect, but the flourishing of brand new outlooks on not only Christianity but of other religions as well. Not only the Mormons and Adventists, but whole slews of lesser belief structures flourished under the optimistic views of the role of the New Nation and her People in the advancement of the World to a glorious new era. Many of those were, of course, seeking to bring about the new Kingdom of Jerusalem, but when they actually GOT to Jerusalem they found it not what they were led to believe. Thus the disenchantment with many religions *also* happened and even newer ones sprung up to attempt to meet the personally perceived failings of the previous ones. And in this great flourishing, which would also hit Europe later, was the type of sect that is almost absolutely, purely American.

The Sect of One Person.

That blending of new ways of looking at man's role in society also led to new ways of looking at man's relationship to the Divine and that religious freedom and leeway was *born* out of the Constitution. It has a very simple set of statements, and they come from the Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[..]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment I is the enabler to religious freedom, but IX and X are the final nails to secure that freedom firmly. These three Amendments clearly demarcate that the Federal Government shall not speak prejudicially for or against religion, nor stop religion from being practiced, nor stop the promulgation of religion, nor stop the invention of religions, nor stop the ability of individuals to CHANGE religions. The freedoms of the Individual are sacrosanct in these areas, and while States may have a religious outlook, they are also disallowed from religious persecution because of the Protections given in Article IV, Section 2. This is the basic restatement of the Peace of Westphalia to ensure that it is kept and respected internally between the States.

The Federal Government has not been pure in that, but the spirit towards mankind shown by various holidays and such is evident. A holiday here and there and the sparse few days the Government allows its workers to find some sort of communion with the Divine is traditional, in that in this era a day-off can be put to good use even if it is not a holy day for one's religion. When I take a look and see more and more 'Sects of One', however, the apparent concept that an umbrella term to try and unite such highly individual and disparate views on even a generally agreed-upon basis is fraught with danger.

And that danger is back in the world with us today with avengance.

Consider the bill that Rep. John Conyers wants to pass: Resolution Regarding Religious Intolerance. And what is the basis for this bill? Well, Rep. Conyers tries to do some nice window dressing and say that it applies to all religions, but he has decided that Congress should show especial attitude towards ONE religion. And that religion is? From the text of that Resolution we get the following:

Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;

Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;

Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;

Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;

Now here is a very, very interesting bit of work, isn't it? Do we remember that bit on the 30 Years' War? 15-20% of Europe dead? Yes, a nasty, nasty affair about the establishment of various sects of Christianity and how they viewed the Divine and what was or was not accepted practice, all leading to some of the longest most brutal killing, rapine and outright slaughter of people ever seen. All from the varigated followers of 'The Prince of Peace'. So do excuse me if a religion that has "peace" in its central conceptual sphere and yet has problems adhering to it do not get any special recognition for having same in their sphere. Perhaps we could judge individuals on their actions, not on their religious affiliation?

Even worse is the singling out of the Koran and Islam to give it especial significance. Also, and even worse, is the citation of the number of people in the US following that religion. Tell me, Rep. Conyers, is that citation a promise of good behavior, or a threat if the rest of the Nation does not go into "peace" and "submission" of favoritist religious laws? Why single out the Koran when there are scads of other Holy Works and Divinely Inspired tomes and such that should *also* get especial recognition? Why do you cite it specifically in the following:

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

Why not say that ALL religious works, tracts, books and all Divinely Inspired Works or of religious import should be protected without respect to its Source? Why single out ONE book for mention and give it higher recognition than any other? If you need a list of books that are of import to religions past and present, from minor to major, you could have stated so and then amended a fuller listing, like the following:

Poetic Edda
Hávamál
The Younger Edda
Kitáb-i-Aqdas
Kitáb-i-Íqán
Persian Bayán
Arabic Bayán
Selections from the Writings of the Báb
Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Four Valleys
Gems of Divine Mysteries
Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh
Hidden Words
Some Answered Questions
Long Healing Prayer
Seven Valleys
Summons of the Lord of Hosts
Tabernacle of Unity
Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh
Tablet of the Holy Mariner
Paris Talks
Secret of Divine Civilization
Some Answered Questions
Tablets of the Divine Plan
Will and Testament
The Advent of Divine Justice
Bahá'í Administration
God Passes By
World Order of Bahá'u'lláh
Tripitaka (Pali Canon)
Mahayana sutras
Tibetan Buddhist canon
Tanakh
Talmud
Holy Bible
Biblical apocrypha
Kolbrin
Book of Mormon
Pearl of Great Price
Doctrine and Covenants
Principia Discordia
Śruti
Smriti
Vachanas
Mantra Gopya
Shoonya Sampadane
Shaivite Agamas
Qur'an
Hadith
Nahj al-Balagha
Tattvartha Sutra
Ginza Rba
Arzhang
Course in Miracles
Conversations with God
The Gnostic Gospels
The Urantia Book
The Kebra Nagast
the Holy Piby
the Kebra Negast
The speeches of Haile Selassie I
Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy
The Samaritan Pentateuch
The Satanic Bible
The Guru Granth Sahib
The Dasam Granth Sahib
The Kojiki
The Nihon Shoki or Nihongi
The Spirits Book
The Book of the SubGenius
The writings of Emanuel Swedenborg
Daozang
The I Ching
The Holy Books of Thelema
Divine Principle
Wolli Hesul
Wolli Kangron
The Katha
The Avesta
The Dēnkard
The Bundahishn
The Mainog-i-Khirad
The Arda Viraf Namak
The Zartushtnamah
The Sad-dar
The Rivayats
The Zend
The Enuma Elish
The Seven Evil Spirits
Ishtar and Izdubar
Koryak Texts
Chukchee Mythology
Tales of Yukaghir, Lamut, and Russianized Natives of Eastern Siberia
The Man in the Panther's Skin
Devil Worship: The Sacred Books and Traditions of the Yezidiz
Tibetan Folk Tales
Ainu
The Voyage of Bran
The Second Battle of Mag Tuired (Cath Maige Tuired)
The Cattle-Raid of Cooley (Táin Bó Cúailnge)
The Destruction of Dá Derga's Hostel
Cuchulain of Muirthemne
The Gododdin Poems
Carmina Gadelica
The Confucian Canon
The Egyptian Book of the Dead
The Egyptian Heaven and Hell
The Liturgy of Funerary Offerings
The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden
The Burden of Isis
Beowulf
The Faerie Queene
Le Morte d'Arthur
The Mabinogion
The High History of the Holy Graal
The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage
The Magus
The Book of Ceremonial Magic
Sixth Book of Moses
Seventh Book of Moses
The Key of Solomon The King
The Tale of the Armament of Igor
The Kalevala
The Lay of the Cid
The Necronomicon
The Book of Dzayan
Hermes Trismegistus
the Turba Philosophorum
Olaus Wormius
The Gardnerian Book of Shadows
The Golden Bough
Aradia, Gospel of the Witches
The Malleus Maleficarum
Dæmonology
The Syrian Goddess
Oahspe, A Kosmon Bible in the Words of Jehovih and his Angel Embassadors
Book of Knowledge
The Origin of Oahspe
The Samoan Story of Creation
Noa Noa
Sacred Formulas of the Cherokee

I am sure the Congressional Research Service can do a *much* better job than I can, but this seems to cover a goodly portion of all known religious texts, volumes, tracts, records and such that really should be adored and protected as the common heritage of humanity. I am sure I missed a few as many religions have depth in their amount of writing and some of those listed are multi-book affairs or even broader classifications upon tens or hundreds of books. And you could even say that the list is not inclusive and then also put in a provision for any devout group or individual to place upon that list their additional inspired works. And then you could get further from language like this in your proposal:

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

[..]

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

Because this is starting to sound like a separate Islamic Bill of Rights leading to a total withdrawal of Islam from the Common Governance of the United States. When any piece of legislation singles out any single religion in a broader 'religious protection bill' you are bluntly stating that you are no longer respecting all religions equally before the Law of the Land. Now you *could* remove the Islamic and Quran references and bluntly state your support for ALL Citizens to have respect of their beliefs. Otherwise you stand in opposition to Amendment I, and now put the force of the Federal Government due to especial mention FOR one single religion by citation and mention above ALL OTHERS.

Why not just pass a resolution to re-affirm the Rights of Citizens without regard to their religious outlook to practice their religion in peace so long as it harms none, Mr. Conyers?

Oh, we already have that.

In the Constitution.

Just in case you forgot, Rep. Conyers.

The document you have sworn to uphold and defend.

The Passing of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

My recollections of Mr. Schlesinger are few, but I have always known his heart was in the right place, even when he did some things I have no toleration of.

He gave us insight into Jackson and FDR, two Presidents who did, indeed, change the world in their outlook. He staunchly supported American Exceptionalism and the power of people to use their rights creatively. He fought to ensure that the Communist Party in America would not be seen as acceptable, and was purely partisan of his old-line fealty to the Democratic Party. He embraced the values that America had to create a new world because we could work together as a People, and he rejected multiculturalism and a host of ills that go with it. In his latter years he staunchly supported the positions he had held and those that he had admired, even when evidence of their lacks came to the forefront. He walked well and firmly as an 'old school' defender of the Nation and his Party and those beliefs.

What he forgot in his views from Jackson was that one never, ever hands permanent power to government to cure temporary ills. Nor is government a means to enforce the public good, but to ensure that the public can be good and cause no ill to the common weal. By supporting those things he helped to lay the foundation of the ever increasing government we see today, and its encroachment upon the Rights and Liberties of the Citizenry. He had sought to help those poor oppressed by circumstances, and forgot that the Republic offers a hand up to those so beleaguered, but never a hand-out to make individuals beholden to the government. In that forgetting he undid much good that he did in life and lost grasp of the world that changed around him in ways he did not like, because of that.

He was a good man, all told, even with the problems caused by his fierce partisanship to his party... even when his party stepped from the Nation as a whole. A true 'Cold Warrior' who supported his Country, even when the commonality was disappearing because of those things he advocated. And a man who held to his beliefs even when they had turned on the Nation itself so that it now finds it difficult to even defend the Republic. For all the good that he did for many, we now pay for the drawbacks of those outlooks upon us to this day.

For the simple problem that We the People are the Government.

Not the Government over We the People.

The first of the 20th century liberals who would forget that the 19th century liberals warned and hard against many things, and that government needed to be checked so that People could be Free.

I honor his life even in disagreeing with what has come of it.

The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 4 - The Perfection of Imperfection

The United States has a founding upon two things: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. The first is a Preceptual Guideline on what man, as individuals, get in life and what their empowerment means for Government. Those Guidelines lead to the understanding that Government is not handed down from on high, but instituted amongst men, by men so as to address the actual world of mankind. To safeguard the Rights of Man, Governments are instituted by the consent of the Governed thus leading to a society that does not seek its rights *from* Government but, instead, grants minimal rights *to* Government to fulfill its responsibilities to the Governed. When such Governments no longer abide by that, it is the just and due Right of the People to change or abolish such Government and formulate new governance.

Between the Declaration and the Constitution came the Articles of Confederation, which only loosely associated the States and provided no centrality of understanding amongst them. Each State had major burdens and very little basis to actually uphold those burdens and the People were impoverished by that formulation. Those five long years between the formal end of the Revolution and the standing up of the New Nation were rife with rebellion, protest and repression via imprisonment and seizures of land. Those same founders that agreed to the Declaration of Independence and then agreed that the time was upon them to form new governance so that a more Just and Equitable system could be established.

To more clearly state these things: the Founders of the United States had tried and *failed* in their first attempt to form a New Nation. They had wanted this loose association to work, so as to let States have wide freedom and leeway and not put a repressive Government in place. Instead they had created something that impoverished the People, concentrated authority to the few in the State seats of power, and the system was giving rise to the possibility of a Second Revolution. Every single signer of the Declaration who then went on to sign the Constitution recognized that they, personally, had failed in outlook and creation and must try to make something that would actually uphold their ideals and yet not repress the People. The United States was formed on a look to perfect goals, but the imperfection of man led to first time failure.

The outlook stated in the Declaration would not allow for long-term failure as, to do that, the very foundation of Liberty and Freedom for Individuals would be *lost*. A Second Revolution would most likely turn reactionary towards the original Revolutionaries and the society to be born out of that would be harsh, authoritarian and repressive. As many of the Founders had worked the land or been huntsmen and woodsmen, trekking through uncharted wilderness, they recognized an ancient axiom of survival: Don't Stop.

When lost in the wilderness, with only the most basic of bearings or even an *idea* of what the right way to go actually is, you follow up on that grimly and with determination. You do not 'stop to think it through' as that leads to doubt and wavering of willpower to survive. A brief respite to continue on is one thing, but to sit and stop and try to think if you are 'doing the right thing' is deadly, as it leads to the idea that one can, in actuality, think their way out of the wilderness. Soon long minutes turn into hours, and then night approaches and you have done *nothing* to find shelter or build a fire or find food. You are starving using your energy to think instead of move onwards. In the modern era, if there is any hope that anyone will remember where you went and you came in a vehicle, it is usually safer to stay with that vehicle than go onwards until all other options run out. When confronted by no outside help and dangerous animals roaming, one moves to stay alive so as to be hard to track while you work slowly, continually towards a *goal*. When you plan for rest, you *plan* for it, and ensure that you have found shelter, succor and sustenance. Then at first light you are up and moving once more.

By having had the Articles of Confederation the Founders recognized that the other axiom of motion for survival also held true: Move in *any* direction, even the *wrong* direction as that will give you perspective and then show you the right way to go. The Articles were the wrong path to Nation for the young United States. It would not give an equitable society nor justice nor ensure Freedom and Liberty. That is when you stop, re-assess and then step out in a different way heading towards the goal of success. The next step may not be perfect or lead to perfection, but it is towards that Goal and much, much better than where you were headed, which was deadly. Thus the Founders had set their Goal, stopped what they were doing and checked their bearings and realized they had not gone in the right direction towards their goal. The Goal, then, was simply to make something that would outlast them and give Freedom and Liberty a chance to take root and let something better come from their work.

Given the long perspective of history, we are divorced from the pain they had surely felt in realizing that they had not crafted well on their first attempt at things. They wanted time to see if things could work out and when it was apparent that they would not only *not* work out but things were headed in the opposite direction of the Goals, they came forth to try again. The Goal was worth the humility of admitting that they were wrong and worth the re-commitment to the Goal that had been set as a firm fixture. So many of their countrymen had died for this, a Nation was still in chaos and ruin needing to be built and the enforced poverty that the States put upon the People were making that goal of having a Nation seem to drift further and further away.

It was not a 'given' that the United States would survive and the track record for democracy had been, until then, quite abysmal. It was assumed the inherent difficulties in democracy would be the undermining of it, and that the People would turn to rabble and vote themselves all sorts of goodies until things went bankrupt. By attempting to address those ills, America was striving to put something a bit different together that just might hold together for awhile. After the problems with the Articles this was no sure thing in 1786 Annapolis Convention that called for a 1787 Philadelphia Convention to straighten things out. The Shaysite Rebellion of that Winter brought out just how near collapse the entire enterprise was and Washington, himself, was moved enough to go to it so as to try and head off a final defeat that would have destroyed all he had worked for during the years of fighting in the Revolution.

Coming together in 1787 was a profound happening in America as those that had fought the Revolution for 7 long years now had to face the fact that the Government they first made would not meet their dreams after 5 years. They understood that to attempt to remake their work they would need to change their views and themselves so as to create a firmer foundation for lasting Government. After the harsh payment in the lives of those lost, some 10% of their countrymen dead by the Revolution and 15% fled to the Crown, America was destitute of people, of money and increasingly lacking in cohesion. The Revolutionaries had followed their original view and moved from cooperation amongst themselves as States within a Nation to their States alone. The Nation had no basis without commonality and the commonality of loss was still being paid for and dearly on the backs of the land owners, the farmers and the poor. The Goal fought for starting in 1775 and established by the Revolution was coming so undone by 1787 that all the cost was put at peril. There would be no Liberty or Freedom in America because there would be no America.

To those familiar with the great story themes, this is one that sticks out time and again across Peoples and across time: having found a dream and held it, that dream became lost again. Odysseus was the man to turn to for direction until that direction was tempest tossed and yet he won through by re-dedication to come home to hearth and wife and to end his long travels once and for all. Moses sought after the place of homeland for his people to espy it, yet while away the Israelites were called upon for so much work that they had lost the meaning of what it was to be Jewish, and brought his people forth to hard circumstances to recover what they had lost so they would be worthy of a home. Robert the Bruce would see his people lost and need travel far to re-find the will to lead his people to be a people and embrace who they were via their traditions. Jesus of Nazareth learned the meaning of the society and then spent time in the desert once he recognized that it would be lost unless something was done, and then returned with a re-dedication and re-commitment to his people so that their understanding could spread and be sustained by new outlook. To win through for a People, they must lose so that they understand the meaning of what it is they have. And then dedicate themselves to it, anew.

None are so low as those facing that humility of loss, of having failed and of having all they understand brought into question.

And none are so found as those that realize that they stand for their People to be a People, to be different, to be special and to leave a mark that will last longer than their short span on Earth. None so lost as Odysseus from home and wife seeking to regain it; as Moses coming home and finding his People slowly losing what it means to be a People separate from Egypt; from Robert the Bruce returning home to fight the good fight to assert that the old way is the way of his People and could not be denied; and of Jesus coming from the desert and trials and tribulations and learning to speak in a new way to his People so as to give the basis to revitalize society... revitalize the world.

That was America in 1787: it had won its ideals and then was faced with those same things being lost because the idealistic form of Government would not work and would lose all that was fought for and won. Washington left Mount Vernon because his hard work was put in jeopardy because what he had fought for was not working. Others would return with those who had fought and survived in the Revolution and understood the dear price of being a People apart from others. A People not beholden to Crown, to King, to Government and they would damn well not lose the meaning of their lives because of the monetary price attached to the fight they had won. To bring unity they must describe that unity and make a Government that was United in more than word, but in deed. If they could not find a basis for that unity amongst themselves, then all who depended upon them would fail and fall back to chaos and tyranny.

The review of what they had said was important in the Declaration of Independence told them that the Rights of Man to be Individual is only sustained by the Government created in Common to serve All of the People. And those same People must come together to be a Nation so that a Government could be established. Without the Nation, Government would be mere fiction and no longer represent the will of the People, only itself. That is what they had fought *against* and would not allow to happen again. The review of the Declaration had told them the path and that path may end in Government, but the Government, itself was not an end in and of itself. It was a means for the People to come together and give common expression to their will. For Man to have Just Government by the Consent of the People, the society must have a Nation that and that Nation bow to being an artifact of that common will. To have Rights for Individuals needs more than Government: it requires commonality in commitment and understanding via the Society the People create.

In making the Constitution the People drafting it were well aware of the frailty of Representative Democracy and of Republics. Putting those two together was thought to be an invitation to mob rule and destruction of society to that mob. By layering representation into the structure in multiple ways and having it work at cross-check and balance, the Will of the People could find both voice and stability in Government. The drafters were also too well aware of the tendency for Government to move to tyranny and despotism, and did their best to ensure that not only would Rights be upheld but that the entire social compact laid down in the Constitution would be understood so that Rights would not put Liberty at peril. Attempting to use Government to suppress the Rights of People had proven to be awful and led to some of the bloodiest religious wars ever seen heretofore. That had to be negated by creating something that was in Common and would not speak against religion of any type, but for the Rights of Man to *have* religious beliefs not controlled by the State. The other had proven not to work and was negated by the enforcement of that basic right for the People. That said each State within the Union had separate outlook while coming together and those States would need to decide on such things in common with their People so long as the commonality of All of the People was not put in jeopardy. The right to speak out and put forth ideas, both for good and ill, was upheld so that the People may decide freely on the ideas and ideals that would govern them and their society. That held in common could not endanger that, less the road to authoritarian rule be started. The right to keep and bear arms so that the People and their States may protect themselves not only separately but in common with the Union was upheld and could not be infringed by the Government. Time and again basic rights are stated and upheld for Individuals so that they have especial protection against those seeking tyranny.

Even further those that drafted the Constitution put forth that those rights not specifically granted to Government to govern, were the sole realm of the States and the People. The fount and founding of Rights was not gracious Government, but good People who agree to have their rights and respect those of others. In doing all these things the drafters also recognized one other part of their failure: anything they made would need to be reviewed and amended as times changed so that this framework of governance could have continued meaning over time. Thus the right of the People to Amend the Constitution or call together a new Convention is sacrosanct and the ONLY way the Constitution may be changed. No matter how high their ideals, the realization that to make this something for the People was to make it amenable and amendable to them and by them. They had not been handed engraved stone tablets from on high, but only parchment and ink in the hands of man.

And they knew that their work would cause a long-term problem in the form of slavery. The Declaration nearly shattered the Southern Colonies from the rebellion due to its wording on the Rights of Man. That was papered over and that 'fight would be put off to another day'. Coming together with the agricultural South having high trade and the North being in poverty due to taxation, the Constitution again put that fight off so that there might be a chance for a Nation to reconcile this question about Universality of Rights and slavery. The Constitution was flawed because of that and that would be recognized and agonized over for decades until the day of reckoning arrived. The drafters of the Constitution stepped back from that abyss which would shatter the young Nation and send brother against brother, when they had still not recovered from the Revolution. So Amending and Convention were added so that hoped for wiser generations could finally resolve this question.

In that the Society that was built failed and in an awful manner that would see over 600,000 Americans dead and wounded. Casualties to our inability to come to common terms as a Society and a People, until brother was set against brother and the Nation set back once more. That nearly shattered the Nation completely and nearly undid the work of 1787 and of 1776. We did not find perfection then, nor now and we are still reminded of that by the Founders who drafted the language of the Constitution. We are not enjoined as a People to perfection but to make a 'more perfect Union'. To stand by our society, our Nation and strive to make it better in common for all of the People. And our National symbol of Liberty reminds us of the lacks in ourselves: The Liberty Bell is cracked, though its tone is still so sweet.

As a People we come together to bridge those cracks, and find that there are far more of them than we had ever imagined or can imagine. That sustainment of Liberty is vital to the Nation and, over two centuries and more, others have heard the sweet tone from that cracked bell and yearn for Liberty and Freedom to have a free society. America has always safeguarded Her own Liberty and Freedom first, and extended the hand of Friendship for those yearning to be free. Men and women have volunteered from this Nation to teach, work and fight for Liberty in far off lands, far removed from the Shores of the Land of the Free. Missionaries went forth not only to teach their version of the Gospel, and there were a plethora of teachings to be sure, but their very presence spoke of the commitment to Liberty and Freedom and the Land that sustained it. The People who invested themselves so much in their belief of it that they took their lives in their hands to spread their beliefs, and doing that spread the word of Liberty. Be it preacher, teacher, ditch digger or soldier overseas those Free People from America have demonstrated by their presence that not only is Liberty worth having, but worth spreading. Americans, in doing this, lead by example so that others may see what it means to be a Free Individual exercising their Rights to their Responsibilities.

It is this simple exercise of People doing according to their beliefs and recognizing that they have consequences that bespeaks of America. It is not in the words, though they give common form and transmission to ideas and ideals, but the actually placing oneself where they can do as they see fit and damn the consequences because it is the *right thing to do* that spreads Liberty and Freedom. Americans do not place themselves above other Peoples and reach out to them so as to help them from poverty, from disease, from ignorance and from tyranny. And so many that have extended that hand have died from those that wish never to see the dawning of Freedom in their lands. Scholars, doctors, teachers, priests, soldiers and just ordinary folks out to explore the world come what may have all paid a price year in and year out to practice Freedom and make it whole.

When that clarion call to Nation was given in 1776, those who called realized that the price to pay would not end in one war. The Revolution was the start of a very, very long conflict that would go on for generations. Go on for centuries. They gave that call because they saw that the Price in blood was far outweighed by having Liberty and Freedom so that something better could be built by Free Individuals. They paid a far steeper toll than at any time since the Revolution and that has proven to be the smallest of down payments on keeping this dream of Universal Freedom for Mankind alive. That is what America was called to do and harshly reminded by our own bloody faults through time that we are damned imperfect and should not once nor ever take on airs of sainthood or of perfection. Those that have decried the lack of perfection by society are lauded when they are able to reconcile the perfect with the merely human. Those that stick to their perfect beliefs and die for them are admired, but also looked at quizzically for they have not tried to make a more perfect Union between themselves and society, but attempted to remake society into something it can never be: Perfect.

If America falls short of Perfection it is because it strives for that and will never achieve it, but recognizes the struggle is worth the achievement that can be won. The Declaration was not a call to realistic goals but for unrealistic and noble goals of Universality of Rights and People to have Societies that would Govern them in accordance to their wishes. The Constitution was the realistic foundation for common governance and to have that Government be in common and yet never to infringe upon society nor individuals lest it become despotic. That framework limits Government because the People see it as something necessary for survival and to have a common vision. It is not meant to assure a good life, but ensure that a good life can be led. It is not created to protect the outlook of diversity but the diversity of outlook necessary to a vibrant society. Government is safeguard against tyranny not a guarantee against it.

That sole guarantee is held in common by those who call themselves: We the People.

The Upgrade Partnership Plan

The following is a policy position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

America is a Nation on the move and progressing quickly in areas of science, technology and industry. Indeed, being the most productive people on the planet, Americans far outdo any others at their rates of productive work and their creativity and then upgrade the entire infrastructure necessary to create new ways of life and work faster than anyone, save, perhaps, the Japanese with 'Hello, Kitty!'. That said Americans also discard these old devices because they just aren't modern anymore. Entire industries have come and gone in the United States leaving their industrial wastelands behind them. And growing businesses shift from capability to new capability and the old equipment hits the scrap heap.

The following is the Upgrade Partnership Plan of the United States.

Today two Nations that the United States has helped out from the heel of despotic and tyrannical rule are now hard pressed to become productive societies in all areas of endeavor. On the Academic, Medical and Scientific realms, organizations public and private have found partners for their old equipment from Universities, Colleges, Teaching Schools and Laboratories in Iraq and Afghanistan. These needs to not only be encouraged, but rewarded and expanded. To do this and to help partnerships foster between these new democracies and America, the Federal Government needs to be involved to first offer such rewards and then give capabilities not easily had by even the industries of America to ensure that old equipment is properly moved from the United States to Iraq and Afghanistan, installed and individuals trained in their use.

To do this the United States proposes that the Dept. of Commerce do the following:

1) Solicit lists of all old industrial equipment, agricultural equipment and any other supporting equipment that American businesses and private concerns now find on their books but with no longer term utility as they are 'outmoded'. Further, those in the ongoing private organizations in the Academic, Medical and Scientific communities may add to this list any of those items that they have found to be unplaceable or that they do not have the capability to easily transport due to mass or size. Such things as make, model, serial number, original equipment manufacturer and such are to be included in this along with original purchase value.

2) The Dept. of State will be handed this list and will then work between the US Government and the Governments in Afghanistan and Iraq to partner organizations based on need. The Iraqi and Afghani Governments shall ensure that companies, hospitals, businesses and any other group or organization is a valid one to receive and utilize such equipment. Points of Contact from the original list will then be contacted and the Dept. of State shall facilitate meetings between the donor and receiving organizations to ensure that the entire scope of equipment type, maintenance, training and other sustainment information is passed on and that any pre-delivery training or inspections are facilitated so as to allow the receivers to ensure that they are getting what they are looking for. All such recipients shall demonstrate plans, backing and ability to utilize such equipment and are to be the end-recipients, not intermediaries or re-sellers.

These two Nations get first priority and right to look over such lists. Then this list shall be provided to every Nation that has helped the United States in its endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq since the start, or has shown unwavering support in these efforts, and have not withdrawn from them in reverse order of their per capita income or other indicator so that the poorest of Nations has the greatest opportunity to benefit from their work in support of the United States. If no such receiving organization can be found, then the donor shall be informed and given a full tax write-off of said equipment and its disposal in accordance with all Local, State and Federal laws covering such if necessary.

3) Once this is done the USAID or other trade and commerce arms of the US Government shall ensure that the equipment is dismantled and properly shipped. On those projects that are too large for commercial industry to handle, the US Army Corps of Engineers will be given the task of designing the most cost efficient method of dismantling, transporting and reconstructing such equipment in cooperation with both the donor and receiver organizations. Private construction and transport capability is to be used whenever possible and it is cost effective to do so. When that cannot be done, US Transport Command will be given the task of transporting such equipment and the US Army Corps of Engineers shall be used as the organization of last resort for installing such equipment. Such transport by the US Transport Command or other military organization is done free of charge to this program and the cost carried by the People of the United States. Some creation of new facilities will be necessary and the receiving organization must work that out prior to delivery and ensure that such facilities are fully ready for the equipment.

4) All such equipment shall have a full write-off of original equipment value from all donor organizations so as to reduce their tax burden. All time and materials expended shall also be written off so as to reduce the tax burden of those organizations. Anything above and beyond that is considered to be a Charitable Donation and its cash amount is also written off on taxes in full and without restriction for the entire project. Any amounts that cannot be written off in one year by bringing taxes due to zero, shall then be applied the next year and following years until the full sum is expended.

5) The organization(s) in charge of transfer shall perform annual inspections and reports on such donations and identify any long-term help needed in the way of supplies or maintenance and work with American industry to ensure that such can be done on a sustainable basis both for the recipient and for the companies involved. At the end of 5 years the last inspection shall be performed and Medals of Industrial Citation struck so and given to the donor(s) and recipient(s) involved in each transaction. A historical marker will also be placed at the donor site to establish that this site once housed the equipment listed and that it was given to the recipient(s) so as to help them build a free society.

6) All donations are subject to standard security caveats for 'dual use' equipment and other safety provisos for long term security initiatives and standard industrial safety. Any such equipment that is duly transported with such security concerns shall be tracked until its end-of-lifecycle and final destruction by the recipient.

As part of the need for American Academia, Industry, Business, Medicine and Science to show its willingness to extend a helping hand towards those Nations coming into the light of democracy and freedom, and sustaining the valuable Friends and Allies of the Nation is this done. The United States recognizes that while older equipment may have less value to the Nation, it may still have high and great value to those that have NONE.

In any case where old industrial property was purchased so as to allow private individuals and companies to remove old industrial sites that are not in working condition, such individuals and companies must show a plan for rehabilitation of such sites, especially those that have hazardous waste at them. States may certify any waivers or plans that vary from this if the State is satisfied that the good of removing the equipment outweighs the need for site remediation. Any long term uses are acceptable, save abandonment of such sites.

Let us not see the building of new societies to become free as one that need expend cash and cash only. Let the Nation come to see that doing the equivalent of 'cleaning out the attics and closets' of America at older and unused sites is an opportunity to re-invigorate those areas and return them to their communities as a better place for their goods having gone to Peoples in need.

Who gets the 50 Questions?

Yes, now that there are 50 Questions to hand out, they get to go to the major campaigns, first.

So this week is the major party candidates as listed at Ron Gunzberger's Politics1 Site. My thanks to him for compiling and updating this list and as new candidates arrive they will also get a copy of the questions. I will just be taking the HTML from my post, making a letter and sending it to every campaign. They will get the text of the post, plus minimal introductory sentence with link-back to the post. If they do not have html capability then they get the plain text of the post plus a plain text html link in the introduction. And there are going to be some categories of response that will be given:

1) No response. Typical expectation of Party Elites who do not need to respond to Citizens. Call this the 'Aristocratic Response'. Automatic email replies will be considered this after 1 week from that reply if nothing further is sent.

2) A staffer will 'flack' the response. This is pretty much standard for all the Congresscritters and is representative of their not wanting to be in contact with real, live voters that are mere Citizens of the Union. Hard to categorize this as it is the 'run of the mill' way campaigns have to deal with anyone so as to not bother their poor Candidate with actually having to think. So it can be called the 'Plastic Bubble Response' as any communicating with real people might cause an infection that would be instantly fatal to the Candidate's thought processes. Candidates in this are so highly protected that they have no way to actually think about alternative ways of doing things nor address them.

3) The 'Technowonk Response'. This category is reserved for any campaign that puts forth their 'programs' and does not wish to deal with their outlook on various subjects that matter to the Union. In this category is also such responses as: 'just read this/that book the candidate endorses' and 'we have all the programs we support up on a website.' These are not addressing issues, but addressing details. Can't know if they are the right details unless the issues are addressed.

4) The 'BTDT Response'. Very few Candidates can actually do this as very few have actually laid out their views on America and philosophy of governing. If they have actually written a book on same and then still *require* payment, then one must begin to wonder exactly *why* they should be paid for something that should be freely available to all Citizens if that is their true viewpoint. Those unable or unwilling to put out their text into the Public Domain will gain the 'Extortion Response' as they do not look for the Nation as a whole, but to line their own pockets and let people hope they will govern by what they have stated.

5) The above items 1-4 should cover 99.99% of all Candidates given past views on how others have acted once they have gotten into High Office. Anything else will get a 'Singular Response' and demonstrates some minimal level of open-ness, fairness and willingness to engage in even minimal dialogue with the Citizenry. In truth, I do not expect to get ANY of these.

Now time to get the list going and I will follow the ordering on the Politics1 site and only those OFFICIALLY announced for anything get this:

1) Sam Brownback - website - Now, his website uses the ever lovely 'webform', so that will now get a filling out. And the webform is NOT html enabled. So be it, they get a hardcode plain text of it at the start and they can find it at their leisure. Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

2) Jim Gilmore does NOT have an official contact site as yet. And I do not trust anyone at a Drafting committee to be able to actually get information through to their espoused candidate. So nothing sent his way until he gets his act together.

3) Rudy Giuliani - Has an exploratory website, no contact info. Will wait for developments.

4) Duncan Hunter - Has a website under construction. Will wait for developments.

5) John McCain - website - Webform. Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

6) Ron Paul - website - Has email contact at the site. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

7) Mitt Romney - website - Oh, my, a 'Policy Contact'! Well, that gets an email. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

8) Tom Tancredo - Has exploratory website, no contact info. Will wait for developments.

9) Tommy Thompson - website - General info email at site, and I do want general info! Handy, that. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

Fun so far, isn't it?

Now for the Democrats:

1) Joe Biden - website - General info email at site, still handy! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

2) Hillary Clinton - website - Yes, the good General Info is there too! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

3) Chris Dodd - website - Now, what sort of politician first puts up a recruitment interstitial page? Luckily one can skip it. A webform! Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

4) John Edwards - website - What is it with these 'join up' interstitial splash pages? Yes you can skip them... but it is a bit off-putting if you are trying to find OUT about a Candidate and you get the recruitment poster. A webform! Sent but they have a Confirmation Page! Amazing! [24 JAN 2007]

5) Mike Gravel - Dear Senator, you webpage currently gets a 403 Forbidden. Suggest you get someone to put up a nice little photo page and a 'coming soon' on it.

6) Dennis Kucinich - Now here is something special on this day, 24 JAN 2007: Mr. Kucinich has TWO web sites. The first one is non-functional and the website has declined to show the page. The second is all snazzy, save for the broken center section in my web browser... but, by looking around you can get in contact with Chad at the website! Poor Chad. One hopes he is not hanging. Time to send him a lovely little email, just as formulaic as all the rest without one peep on the non-functioning of the sites in question. They might want to hire Gen. Info in the future... Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

7) Barack Obama - website - Gen. Info on duty there! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

8) Bill Richardson - website - Webform. Sent and a Confirmation Page! [24 JAN 2007]

9) Tom Vilsack - website - Webform. Sent and a Confirmation Page! [24 JAN 2007]

Well, that is it for the 'big name' folks. A long morning, but worth it.

This post will be updated as necessary over time and most likely broken out a bit more.

The 50 Questions For Those Running For President

As Senator Frist has put up his questions to ask Hillary, or any Democrat running for office, and asked for more, I do feel that there needs be some pointed questions asked, also.

Of the entire field of ALL Candidates as the problems are not those due solely to party alignment. So, let me start off with some of the important questions that have come up time and again in my writings.

1) As President what is your Foreign Policy Goals and Objectives? Not your *programs*. Your Goals and Objectives for the Nation in Foreign Policy.

2) As President what is the role the UN will play, if any, in your view of the National Foreign Policy Objectives of the United States?

3) As President do you support the diplomatic concept of Jus ad bellum in protecting the United States?

4) As President would you use the concept known as Casus Belli to actually name activities and organizations, State based and non-State based, so as to let the world know what the interests of the United States actually are when they are put in danger?

5) As President would you ask Congress for the full and complete exercising of their War Powers so as to involve the American People in their traditional role of war making that is not via conscription?

6) As President would you please define the use and utility of Social Security that had as its main goal is to remove older workers from active working life to combat the 1930's Depression?

7) As President would you explain why it is important that drug companies make 16% or higher profits off of the US taxpayer when Federal Limits for research and development for Federal contracts places a maximum of 12% on same?

8) As President would you favor the complete withdrawal from the quagmire policy due to medical payments that threatens to eat a larger portion of the Federal Budget second only to Social Security?

9) As President would you please cite the reasoning for having the Dept. of Education when reading and cognition statistics have not changed from 1958, when Johnny couldn't read?

10) As President what is your attitude towards the Congressional infringement of the Constitutional Powers of the President in the areas of War Execution and Foreign Policy?

11) As President would you enforce all the Laws of the Land set forth by Congress and ask them to budget for such so that all Laws may be enforced?

12) As President what would be your attitude to towns, cities, counties and States that break with the Constitution in all Six Articles via their giving sanction and immunity to those breaking the Laws of the Land to come to the United States?

13) As President how would you describe illegal labor, exploited at a price set below market price with background threats to keep such labor docile?

14) As President what are your Industrial Policy Goals and Objectives?

15) As President what are your Energy Policy Goals and Objectives?

16) As President how would you describe US Federal Armed Forces put at risk via open attacks from 'neutral' countries and what the response of the United States should *be* to such attacks without reservation of *which* Nation attacks the United States?

17) As President how would you counter the moves of Hezbollah to set up in South America to recruit locals that are ethnically Hispanic or Native Americans, but aligned to Hezbollah?

18) As President what are your Taxation Policy Goals and Objectives?

19) As President what are your Armed Forces Goals and Objectives for Force size, equipment, capability, pay, and outlook?

20) As President would you view illegitimate Acts of War as merely criminal circumstances or as destructive Acts of War upon the United States?

21) As President what is your view upon the legality of the House of Representatives setting its own size in 1911?

22) As President would you favor a 'Sunset Law' for all Federal Laws, Regulations, and Programs so that each would need separate addressing for renewal after a 10 year period? 15 year period? 20 year period?

23) As President would you favor that ALL Branches of the Federal Government be put under the Freedom of Information Act?

24) As President will you sign Bills into Law in which Congress has categorically exempted themselves from such Laws?

25) As President do you favor a Dept. of Agriculture that spends most of its money on subsidies to go to farmers who cannot work crops economically or at market cost?

26) As President do you favor subsidies to large industry, large agriculture or big business? All of these being organizations that employ above the minimal set Federal Standard for a small business.

27) As President what are your Business Policy Goals and Objectives?

28) As President you will need to address Armed Forces attacking from the South. Will you allow NORTHCOM to address such attacks so as to end them?

29) As President how do you view the Congressional expansion of Powers in the areas of interstate trade and commerce?

30) As the War on Drugs has been going on since the 1970's and has been continually escalated with minimal Congressional Oversight, as President would you be willing to declare the Nation defeated in this War?

31) As President would you offer legislation to bring all Patents and Copyrights back to the original terms set by the First Congress?

32) As President would you move the State Department to a pure merit pay, merit promotion and one year review of all Personnel in the Civil Service?

33) As President and witnessing any 20 year period of NASA against the general aviation industry, what would be your Space Policy for the Union?

34) As President would you favor opening the non-discriminatory Federal Employee Health System and Thrift Savings Plan System to the General Public?

35) As President what is your general policy for Tariffs?

36) As President what is your view on the concept of Free Trade as it is applied to Nations that have acted in a hostile manner towards the United States?

37) As President what is your Free Trade policy that will ensure that such trade does not empower State based and non-State based terrorist activities?

38) As President what is you Monetary Policy Goals and Objectives?

39) As President would you support 'The Monroe Doctrine'?

40) As President would you allow the spending of Federal Funds that have *not* been put on your desk for signatory approval for spending via the budget?

41) As President how would you address the long-term disaster needs of the United States for infrastructure and survival given such things as: Yellowstone Caldera events, Mid-Continental Earthquakes along the Mississippi basin, Atlantic tsunami threats from the Canary Islands or other volcanic islands, Cascadia large scale and magnitude earthquake and tsunami running from Northern California to Southern Alaska, large magnitude earthquakes in the Los Angeles to San Francisco regions.

42) As President would you support moving the Combat Air Support mission back to the Army and give the Air Force capability for construction of manned, permanent space based systems for continuous C4I?

43) As President would you support pushing new, modular ships so that the Navy may quickly refit such ships for ever changing roles in the future?

44) As President, if Congress does *not* give money for the full and complete enforcement of all the Laws that they have passed and Presidents have signed, would you then ask for the Congressional ordering of which Laws should be enforced?

45) As President you will find a backlog of letters and documents in the State Department from various organizations that have Declared War upon the United States, and other Departments may also have similar. Given 9/11 are you prepared to accept that these may no longer be idle threats?

46) As President what are your Goals and Objectives for the Intelligence Communities across the entire Federal Government?

47) As President you are to defend the Union against attacks which also includes that of infectious diseases. Would you support moving that role to the Department of Defense?

48) As President do you support the slow increase of the US Federal Armed Forces so as to address Nations that have hostile designs against the United States?

49) As President do you support the drafting of War Powers from Congress so as to involve the Citizenry via Warrants and Commissions to carry out missions to halt all commerce with enemies of the United States and give reprisals unto them?

50) As President would you be willing to read the Constitution out to the Public once per year so that it may be heard and the People reminded of it?


Well, now, that should be entertaining if even 5 of those ever get asked!

On the side column you can find links to the following from The Jacksonian Party:

1) Party Agenda Platform. A more thorough regularizing of the Domestic Agenda and hitting the Federal RESET button.

2) Foreign Policy - Simple enough to understand and stand by. Which means ending NAFTA and leaving the UN. This is so that the Nation can make up for the lack of actually HAVING a Foreign Policy.

3) Goals on the Global War on Terror - Something no other Party is willing to state.

4) Tired of politics as usual? Then why not ask politicians to run and behave ethically during campaigns?

5) And if you can't make head nor tails of the above, then reading on what it means to be a Jacksonian might be of some help.

Unlike the Two Parties, The Jacksonian Party admits it does not exist save for those that abide to it. The 21st century is looking less and less amenable to those things made in the 20th for Nations, but as our enemies go back to earlier times, so can we do so to address them. The Jacksonian Party is neither Liberal nor Conservative, Left or Right nor has any positional stance on the carbonated beverage of choice for individuals. To have a Nation, however, requires that a Nation stand up and be for itself *first* and foremost, above and beyond all other things. When the Nation embraces Friends and Allies it should actually do things to *help* solidify such Friendships and Alliances so that Nations may grow stronger together. And when the Nation fights, it fights to victory. And as no party is willing to stand up FOR the Nation, it is then incumbent upon Individuals to do so by forming such notional Parties as this one so that the obligations placed upon us as a Common Citizenry may be carried out as that is Our responsibility set to Us under the Constitution.

This is the party of One.

Each and every One of Us.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

On re-making the world and why the US doesn't do such things

The following is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

That old burden seems to be hanging around. Which one is that, you may wonder?
Way back at the end of the 19th and early 20th century it was the burden that the Civilized people's of the world saw as the necessary work to remake the world into a more civilized place fit to live in. That lovely era of progress during the 19th century that saw the birth of industry and the expansion of economies on levels never before imagined soon led to the overwhelming feeling that this was an era to end all eras. And that burden was seen as a good one to take up: colonize the less civilized parts of the world and bring them into the sphere of civilization.

"The White Man's Burden"

That was supposed to bring that lovely culmination to mankind, in which the whole world would slowly get its act together with the oversight of the industrialized Nations. What happened, instead, to end that era was the "War to end all Wars", save that it did not do that, either. By needing to bring those far-flung Natives 'up to speed' on things, they needed to be educated. Soon they were needed in the civil service to oversee large districts and run things. That education gave rise to cohesive ethnic identity and the move towards Nationalism in many of the colonies. By the end of that first World War the Empires had shattered, their colonies flung asunder to cope as best they could with their newfound identities. Some few have not coped over-well with that, and dictators, tyrants, and authoritarian regimes of many stripes marked the checkered history of those new Nations on their own.

In the US this was preceded by the concept of "Manifest Destiny" which is not something you check off on a cargo ship heading out to sea, but the idea that the US is on a mission to inhabit all of the North American continent and a few even looked towards the entire hemisphere. Let me say this: they did have vision, even if it may have been clouded by a bit of smoke and industry. The US Civil war put paid to many such dreams as the Nation came to the realization that there were quite enough in the way of problems without asking to take on those of other folks. Just prior to that was Fifty-Four Forty or Fight, which would finally set the National territories of Canada and the US, so even the Manifest Destiny concept had to confine itself and after the Civil War ground to a slow halt. By the end of the Westward expansion only the idea of competing, in some way, with Imperial powers remained and that got you to "The White Man's Burden".

Now this did not stop another group of folks, those looking for the Final Destiny of Industrialization Globally to look forward re-making the world as they saw it 'should be', either. Those folks were the Socialists and they looked to hasten the end of Capitalism and usher in their perfect world of Socialist Ideals. And they put together the International Workingmen's Association or First International as it became known in later Socialist and Communist circles. After they quit the Second International came forward to continue the good-ideas and spread them further, but also found that they might be able to work within the political systems of various Nations to hurry the day of Socialism forward. It was this group that started the Adult Education classes, indoctrination concepts and other such things as trying to get their various outlooks on life put in place so as to slowly ease Capitalism out of the way without all that mess of Revolutions and such. That is until the Russian Revolution which threw a spanner in the works and pointed out that by working with the system it is continued. The post-WWI Comintern hewed a bit more to this line and re-making the world became a top item on the agenda, after throwing out all the corrupted Socialists. We are still living with the dregs of that utopian dream land, as it twitches its last twitches in Venezuela, Cuba, China, Vietnam and North Korea. Of course that set of Nations isn't looking for real Communism or Socialism these days so the real dream of it is relegated to discussion groups and such, along with the US education system which is chock-a-block with them.

Another Nation that had a "Manifest Destiny" was that of Germany one of the last European Peoples to actually put a Nation together. A German Empire, allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was a late comer to the scene of colonialism and always felt second-rate compared to the prime Empire of their day: Great Britain. Thus, no matter what the achievements of Germany, the Empire could never just get a hold of its duly sized set of colonies to show off its industrial power. And because Germany owed so much to the sciences they also came to think that they should be applied everywhere, even if there were no basis for the application. By using the Darwinian concept of evolution of species and applying it to societies, one gets Social Darwinism, which is a form of racism. With that you get the idea of 'advanced' and 'degenerate' races and 'racial purity' all without any applicational basis from the original theory which is applied via genetics, not via philosophy. All sorts of means and methods were devised to 'measure' social degeneracy, but as those measures had no reliable method to correlate them to actual, underlying principles, they were just means to perpetuate that racism.

The First World War did not remove this from Germany and this concept, along with National Socialism or Fascism, would join together to put together one of the nastiest industrialized Nations looking for lebensraum. The Dictator Mussolini would use collectivist concepts from Socialism/Communism and fuse them with Nationalism and put forth a return to the Glory Days of Rome: the Roman Empire. That would not come to much as Italy was not industrialized enough to do this. Germany, however, would fuse Fascism with Social Darwinism and create an industrialized State that would seek to enslave or kill lesser races and allow Germany to reign supreme as it was Manifest Destiny to do so. Both regimes used the Socialist/Communist concept of inculcating the youth, forced re-education and Germany would institute large prisons for the racially and socially impure and then would form death camps to kill these people on a systematized and regularized basis.

The British Empire, from its slow growth all the way to its lingering demise in the 20th century, would be one of the few Empires that actually *did* try to stick to some ideals while expanding into foreign lands... early on at least. The expansion of the latter part of the Empire under Queen Victoria would definitely lead to its own forms of racism overseas. That would not withstand the attacks from inside the Empire itself, and the press of the First World War would weaken the ability of the Empire to be well governed. The Second World War would definitively end "The White Man's Burden" and finally put that entire chapter of mankind to rest for good and all.

Throughout all of this we do get to see something beyond the 'education', indoctrination and use of force for original purposes. No well run Empire, or even a poorly run one, could do without Colonial Constabulary Forces. These are *not* Military Police, used to safeguard supply lines during active combat, find saboteurs and generally make sure that martial law is properly imposed. Constabulary forces are those forces that are much lighter than the regular military forces of a Nation and yet better armed than local police. In the American Old West, these were Cavalry units that had little in the way of major support firepower, were highly mobile and capable of breaking up small bands of Natives that would attack here and there. In the US, after the major work of forming up the States was done, these forces would slowly wither away while more regular police forces took over. That said, a number of smaller, specialized police groups were formed up until the need for a National Police became necessary and that is the current Federal Bureau of Investigations. They bear almost no resemblance to their Cavalry forebearers who were not mere 'peace keepers' but 'peace makers'.

One of the very first, well organized groups for this was the Praetorian Guards of the Roman Empire, that would serve to quell uprisings and generally keep things together when Rome was at war. The problem with a paramilitary or adjunct military police that is given wide powers is the idea within that force that it may know how to run things better than the commanders of it. In Rome this would be seen when the Guards would start to kill Emperors for 'the good of Rome' and install new ones. That is, at best, a metastable situation, and with the falling of the Western Empire so, too, would the Praetorians fall. By having been unable to do their original set of missions to make the peace and secure it, the Empire itself would fall apart. Emperors grew distant from governing, knowing they could be removed by the Guard at any moment.

The true Constabulary that most in the West know the best is the British form of it, with their Colonial Constabulary units, such as the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Such units started out as direct military adjuncts, but soon took on policing and administration duties for law enforcement on a scale above that of local police. These types of units were the ones that ensured that Imperial Law would be upheld throughout the Colonies and fairly overseen. Within the Socialist/Communist world, however, ensuring alignment to doctrine became as important or more so than law enforcement. The birth of the various Socialist/Communist Secret Police organizations which had existed throughout Europe, took a turn towards brutality as mere political dissent could be punished by death or exile to the Gulag. In the USSR this was the KGB which also had a role in post-military cleanup operations following its predecessors into that role after WWII. In Nazi Germany this counterpart would be the Gestapo for policing on the political side and the Waffen SS would be used for direct action in newly captured territories to round up those that needed to be shipped off as 'degenerates' or just kill them outright. Similarly in Italy the Blackshirts would be the first group to be organized to protect the Fascists and the OVRA would be formed for National means similar to the Gestapo.

The United States did not, generally, look to form these sorts of groups although the US Marine Corps was employed in such realms when nothing else would do. A major source of background against modern insurgents was learned during 'The Banana Wars' in Latin America to ensure US companies would retain their hold on plantations and such for production. By the end of those, however, the concept of trying to establish means for democracy was put forward by President Woodrow Wilson and the work in Haiti in 1915-34 would end in long-term failure as the inability of the United States to address the political questions necessary at home to properly decide on if trying to rebuild Nations was a good idea for a Republic of Free People. Going in to bust up insurgencies and criminal organizations or regimes looking to Nationalize private property was one thing, but re-making cultures was something else again. This concept is a very 'hard sell' to the American People, who have a view of the world of helping others to help themselves... and if they don't want to help then let them be so long as they don't get a notion to harm us. The Haiti experience is a contrast to the Philippine experience, in which, after quelling rebellion, the idea was to turn a relatively peaceful situation over to the local government. A couple of World Wars would delay that and require the Philippines to be recaptured, but final hand-over in 1946 was accomplished.

That is the same concept that the US put forward in post-War Germany and Japan and stayed long enough to ensure that radical elements or Imperial elements would not return to either Nation. Those Nations saw value to having troops stationed with them for some period thereafter, especially West Germany which became a front-line state in the Cold War. At this point in time there is some question as to *why* the US maintains troops in Germany, now that Germany is re-united and the USSR is on the 'ash heap of history'. Thus it comes as some surprise that all of those looking to try and indict the current post-war situation in Iraq will limit themselves to the last major conflict as their only yardstick, forgetting other post-war situations from previous conflicts, and the fact that the US does *not* see itself as a Nation to try and remake the world in its image. The main reason the US does not *have* Constabulary forces, which would be about half the size of the current, total armed forces is that it does not, as a Nation, see the need to have such. While such an idea drove things during the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War, along with "The White Man's Burden", the United States puts a very nasty spin on that: we do not want to be there and want the folks living there to live good lives, not threaten their neighbors and protect themselves on their OWN.

The US still has a number of minor island protectorates and possessions, but each of those is given absolutely free reign to get out from under the shadow of the US and go it on their own. Some stay for purely economic reasons, getting various *perks* via the tax code and not having to form their own military units and national police. A few stay because of sheer loyalty and they appreciate the liberties and freedoms of close association with the US without having to be a *part* of the US. What the US has not wanted to do for long decades is go to places to 'civilize' them or 'educate' them. That is far too much to the Socialist/Communist side of things and gives most Citizens a sour stomach as the end point of those systems is a Secret Police coming to ensure only the 'correct' opinions are held. And from what has been seen of Great Britain, they do benefit from many of their past colonies, but many others have gone their own way and generally declined in that doing. And those that have remained close are Sovereign Nations with minimal, titular fealty to the British Crown. By cooperation those Nations work together on common projects, but none is forced to do so... The US does not like the idea of Monarchy or Empire, and wants only *friendship* which can be deep, long lasting and abiding to be the touchstone of the Nation. The US does not want servants but friends to stand with and stand by in a harsh world.

Having a large, paramilitary Constabulary force would require a major change in outlook by the United States away from the view of universal equality of mankind, to one of having to say some 'deserve' more rights than others. The US has spoken on this plainly with its history and not having an Empire: We do not do that.

It does not work for a Republic of Free People to decide on such things, it is for them to get together and decide on their own how they will handle such.

The US does not overstay its welcome and when asked to leave by a Government that has been stood up with our help, we do so.

The US tries to make things a bit *better* for having to take down tyrants and autocrats, and works at that to let people see that this is how one ensures their Liberty.

By working at it continually to make things better.