To those Americans who have lost heart

This is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

America has stood since its founding against tyrants, pirates and thugs. Of that there is no dispute. That is the foundation of the United States and remains so to this day. The United States stands for many things and has only run ONCE in its history. That was due to disingenuous politicians and ideologues planting the idea that fighting *against* tyranny was wrong on behalf of an Ally. The Nation did commit troops and for the long years the fight went on, going against insurgents and the terrorists of their day. America had experienced that BEFORE in the Philippines and fought through and WON and was able to wrest back control of that Nation once it was over run by an Imperial Force. The Philippines was handed over to local rule, for good or ill and remains self-ruled to this day. To the shame of the Nation We did not honor another Ally in South East Asia and decided to feed them to the wolves of Communism.

Three Nations succumbed to America's cowardice: South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. To those that deride the 'domino theory' note that this was EXACTLY what the US went in to PREVENT. The US did spend blood and treasury in South Viet Nam. We saw it as worth the effort to save a People from Communism. We did not fight to WIN in South Viet Nam and no one pushed for Victory there, for fear of triggering a global thermonuclear war. By not fighting to take territory and remove the Northern regime, the United States gave credence to the power of the USSR and Communism and no good came of that.

By the twisting of fate and cowardice one great enemy of freedom was brought down by those INSIDE its confines. The People of Poland hit those hard strokes upon the foundation of the Communist World and others under their yoke took up those very same hammers featured on their symbols. The arms and hammers of freedom and liberty won a victory that could NOT be won by the United States. While that was going on the Soviet Union made a play for larger expansion in Asia and started the process of generating the next great enemy of freedom, liberty and religious practice. By not keeping the Soviet Union occupied in a minor proxy war, they sought larger hegemony and overstretched themselves, but NOT before producing an enemy that is not so easily fought.

Today the United States and, indeed, the entire free world and all of those that look to the United States as a beacon and bastion of liberty are in a deadly struggle against an opponent so nimble that everything we have built to fight conflicts is no longer up to the task. This enemy will fly no flag and declare no Nation, but is the enemy of ALL Nations. This enemy is rootless in its placement, but deadly in its attacks against the weak and defenseless. There is no wrong this enemy is NOT willing to commit so as to achieve their goal. Their goal is that of Empire.

The Jacksonian Party stands against ALL EMPIRES.

I see those quivering about such things as a 'botched war in Iraq' and 'not getting Osama'.

I have some news for those people: even if those went PERFECTLY we would be in deadly peril still as our enemy has given a valid end state to terrorist conflicts.

That end state is the removal of Nations from the globe, to reduce them to such small pieces that they can be taken over or annihilated.

This is an enemy you *cannot* give an inch to without fighting hard. Any gain will be trumpeted by this enemy as a march on the road to victory... to Empire.

I dare anyone, anywhere, knowing what is known NOW, in incomplete hindsight, to tell me and the American People HOW TO FIGHT A PERFECT WAR.

If you bitch and moan about the loss of US troops in this conflict, may I dutifully point out that the death toll from our enemies upon the innocents of this world outnumbers our measly few lost by orders of magnitude? Further, if you damned well care about *saving* American lives, that one of the leading causes of death, in these United States is septicemia. I have vituperated on the dishonorable Democrats pushing for defeat before, and I will put it to you in this very, very pointed way: the death toll from septicemia in 2000 was 31,224 dead Americans.

From the NIH at the Septicemia page: "Appropriate treatment of localized infections can prevent septicemia."

My fellow Americans, if you put the death toll from 9/11 and from both Afghanistan and Iraq together, you would be face to face with the fact that we LOSE more than six times that amount EVERY YEAR because Americans can NOT act like 5 year olds and clean their cuts.

That attack using the death of brave and patriotic soldiers for DEFEAT against this enemy is one that staggers the imagination because the population has so many people with the inability to look after themselves with *simple* things that they DIE from them. If 1/6 of the Nation took better care of itself the entire death toll from 9/11 to now, in 2006 would be NEGATED. And do note that this is not even a LEADING cause of death amongst the American population but is wholly and completely amenable to being reduced to only infections gained in hospitals if Americans would only TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES BETTER. These people do not die fighting for freedom and liberty, they die due to negligence. Willful negligence.

Then, to make matters worse, those pushing for retreat and defeat use the DEATHS of innocents due to terrorists as an excuse to run. You may find this odd, but when the United States stands up against tyranny innocents end up dead. It is a sad fact that tyrants always target the weak to show their strength. And by standing up for the weak, for those that are being targeted for death we will be unable to stop those murderers and tyrants much of the time. To use the deaths of innocence for anything but to FIGHT HARDER is absolute cowardice. Especially when the fight has been brought to our Shores and Land.

I then hear from those that wish to pull troops back to *secure the border*. The Nation does not need many troops to do that if you are SERIOUS about this issue. The Jacksonian Party puts forward a fully offensive capable, high tech WALL with deep pilings and remote operation capability and a 'free fire' zone in front of it that no one may enter without permission. The cost of that is in the neighborhood of $5 Billion and may require some time from the US Army Corps of Engineers, but most can be *contracted* out. Calling troops home when you are unwilling to INVEST in the Nation's borders is despicable.

But I do understand how the faint of heart just will not be able to stomach a fight for survival.

So, to those that want retreat The Jacksonian Party proposes a Jacksonian Retreat.

I assure you, that you will not like it.

If you think that we should leave Iraq and put troops in Afghanistan then The Jacksonian Party supports one, and only ONE option: it must go overland through IRAN.

Iran has given the United States at least five legitimate Cassus Belli so that we may dispose of it as We wish: Tehran embassy invasion and kidnappings, First Beirut Embassy Bombing, Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut, Second Beirut Embassy Bombing, Khobar Towers Bombing.

Iran has given the United States cause for War and proven itself to be an illegitimate State and HOSTILE to the United States. Some may quiver and quaver and become faint of heart saying that it 'has been too long to hold Iran accountable for their actions'. In this real world of diplomacy and Nation State interaction there is one concept that is SUPREME amongst Nations when cause for war is given: it has NO statute of limitations. Iran has not and does not apologize for its hostile actions and until they have satisfied the United States in being held accountable we are free to march through their territory any time WE damn well please to.

Iran continues to supply and harbor terrorists and gives aid and comfort to those out to destroy freedom and liberty. Iran supports a return to Empire which they call Caliphate. Iran is an enemy of free people across this entire planet and endangers freedom through its Foreign Legions Hezbollah all the way to the Our Shores and the Mahdi Army in Iraq. If Iran attempts to stop US troops from moving across Iran the United States may freely destroy them as Hostile elements of a rogue regime aiming to destroy the United States.

As the US Armed Forces move through Iran We may decide to inspect some of the facilities there. That is part of what comes with being an enemy of the United States: being open and letting yourself be inspected so that We can be assured that you are not working more actively against Us.

And if *any* Iranian wishes to join Our military forces and train with the Free People of Afghanistan or Iraq, then the United States will assist those people in so doing and protect them. Those that wish to join the US Armed Forces may apply for membership.

Iran will no longer be RECOGNIZED as a State, but a mere transit territory to the United States and any other Nation that has legitimate Cassus Belli against Iran.

The United States will link up the two newly freed Peoples of the Middle East so that they may have unrestricted commerce with each other and grow strong together.

Because the United States is OBVIOUSLY not up to that job.

Then the United States Armed Forces will go on a Global Retreat tour to include: the wilderness provinces of Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, the Philippines to help out fast friends in freedom, and, indeed, any Nation that has terrorists within their borders. One by one the entire might of the US Armed Forces will retreat through any land that holds those that have declared war upon freedom and liberty.

This Global Tour may take awhile, I suggest a larger Navy is in order.

That is a Jacksonian Retreat.

Directly OVER the bodies of the enemies of the United States and any that would call themselves free people.

We will rebuild *nothing* as is proper of a defeated Nation.

If you do not like that plan, then you are consigning the Nation and the World to pay the highest price of all.

And may you be damned to whatever awaits you for crying about the blood of innocents without AVENGING THEM.

Mr. Dong Lee, fallen patriot of 9/11 - personal memories

These memories of mine I have held to myself on one of those who died on 9/11. They are not in-depth memories nor part of the larger project of remembrance. I will add these memories to the September 11 Victims site, when done here. It has taken time to come to terms with this and such small memories as I have and what can be put out are limited due to the nature of the work done by both of us. But I honor Mr. Dong Lee for his work and the agreements I made concerning it, both with the company he worked for and the Nation.



During my active career I worked at a Federal Agency that was doing Armed Forces support and Intelligence Analysis, with some other various 'cats & dogs' things given to it by Congress. In my career I worked upon a large scale data storage need as part of a larger project and realized a need to have these documents transmitted, stored and forwarded in a secure manner so that critical information could reach the warfighter and not be easily used if it fell into the wrong hands. I searched for a solution to this problem... and finally, via the old 'Friend of a Friend of a Friend who KNEW someone' I found Mr. Dong Lee.

My contacts with Mr. Lee were minimal, carried out in the professional realm, but the personality and skills of Mr. Lee were apparent even so. Working for Boeing, Mr. Lee had a similar problem that his company faced in the distribution of aircraft project documents that would need wide distribution, but have limited information access within them to restricted numbers of individuals. Over the course of meetings and phone calls I realized that his solution was simple, ingenious, flexible and far beyond the scope of the project I was working on although it could be an integral part of a larger solution.

Mr. Lee, during all of this was an affable individual, with a quick mind and sunny attitude, but also took real world problems seriously and quickly realized how adaptations to existing work could be expanded without compromising the original conception. He was very open to questions, acknowledged shortcomings of his work and that of his company, but gave solutions to them which pointed out to me that he had already *thought* about these problems from various points.

In short, Dong Lee was a patriot who understood the value of this Nation's security and the need to keep important information secure and had no qualms about putting his intellect to the service of a company and his Nation. Capable, knowledgeable and able to present ideas so that they could be quickly and easily picked up and understood as concepts and fit into larger schema, all the while being affable, courteous, outgoing and willing to discuss how these concepts could be worked for other things.

I continued to push within my Agency to get Mr. Lee a hearing at a higher level as his work went beyond my scope.

And then came 9/11.

I only learned about the status of Mr. Lee in a week or so after my back recovered enough to let me return from work. A simple phone call informed me he was on Flight 77.

I was furious.

And deep inside that does not rest within me. Cold and bitter fury that does not burn from heat and will not thaw until all those that do these abominable acts put away that conception once and forevermore.

While thought remains with me and memory still, I will never forgive all of those who took part in robbing the world of the bright, capable and honorable Mr. Dong Lee.

And I will never forget him or the rest of those that perished on that fateful day, even once those that accept this type of abominable act vow to end such actions.

The Jacksonian Party and Free Speech

To the Senators McCain and Feingold and to every Congressman, Senator and to the President of the United States who voted for this insanity, I have one simple and clear thing to say: Money is money and Speech is speech.

If you don't like being chastised in the last moments of a campaign, then perhaps you should run a bit harder to force your opponents to use such slurs *earlier* in the campaign. Or prove them RIGHT about you.

Too much political advertising by large corporations on television? Care to tell me exactly what is *wrong* with that? So long as they honestly step forward and put their NAMES on the garbage they shovel out, that should be THAT.

Accountability of speech is ONE thing and should be upheld by every American as a responsibility.

Denying speech is a step towards LOSING freedom of speech.

Perhaps you need a refresher on this. Let me point out a bit that will help:

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.

A little document called the First Amendment to the Constitution that was gathered into the first block of 10 Amendments known as The Bill of Rights. As far as I can see political advertising AGAINST individuals is *not* breaking the peace.

Note who HAS these rights reserved to them: The PEOPLE.

Not industries.

Not political parties.

Not 'the press' as it is The People who have the right to the press.

There is one, and only one, 'answer' to speech: MORE OF IT!

And perhaps, just perhaps, if you want to be seen as taking the 'moral high ground' in a campaign, the answer is NOT to quash free speech, but to RUN a campaign that TAKES that high ground. If you do THAT then last minute attacks will be seen as the slime slinging that it IS. Unless both parties DO IT.

Then you BOTH are guilty of slinging slime.

If you want an untarnished reputation, may I suggest doing good works for a Church or other fine religious institution.

The American People do NOT elect Saints to office as those have problems dealing with the REAL WORLD.

And perhaps we are tired of electing Third Class Scoundrels into office and would prefer to elect some First Class Scoundrels as replacements!

They would not fear speech as those of you who VOTED for this insanity do. Really First Class Scoundrels can give it as good as they get it. You folks obviously are afraid of such.

With good reason.

Because you are not worthy of the Offices you hold nor the Constitution you all Swore and Oath to uphold and DEFEND.

A First Class Scoundrel *loves* a good fight as it gives them a chance to sharpen their skills, may the BEST Scoundrel Win!

To those of you who voted against this: My thanks for being the BEST SCOUNDRELS YOU CAN BE in Defending the Constitution.

The Long Term Consequences of Defeat

The following is a position paper of the Jacksonian Party.

The principle precept of Jacksonianism is: you don't bother me, I don't bother you; you attack me, I kill you.

Simple, short and sweet. There is no 'proportionate' response involved.

There is no dilly-dallying about for 'what is the right response?' to be batted around and a 'politically acceptable' solution to be found.

There is no compromise. Wars are fought to victory or of compromise between honorable foes that STAND BY their agreements.

When you do 'other things' because wars 'drag on' or 'are too long' or it is 'not in your name' then you had best be asking yourself what YOUR surrender terms for the Nation will be.

Let us start with the litany of defeat and non-response by the United States and see where they lead. And since everyone loves pointing to Vietnam, let that be a nice starting point since the Korean War went on hiatus due to an armistice between foes willing to disengage honorably for their own reasons.

Vietnam had a death toll to it, no doubt. And it did drag on, from start to the ending of support of any kind to South Vietnamese regime on 30 DEC 1974. Unofficially US Armed Forces advisors had been in the area since the Truman Administration, but it was Eisenhower and then Kennedy that made that involvement official. The Kennedy Administration had Ngo Dinh Diem assassinated so that a leader with closer ties to the US could be installed. That, of course, was not a good nor honorable thing to do. Both the Kennedy Administration and the Johnson Administration increased troop commitment to South Viet Nam on the basis of supporting an Ally against Communism. Even once the Viet Cong were no longer a viable fighting force and the US was chewing through North Viet Namese military units, the war was seen as 'unwinnable'. The major problem was: not taking out North Viet Nam via ground forces and occupation. No Administration would sanction that against a Soviet Ally, thus North Viet Nam was able to get resupplied, continuously from its backers. At 6,999 days, all US support, including providing sea-based air cover for South Viet Nam ended by the US Congress. We could not even do *that*.

The results of this were many-fold and none of them good.

First, the US lost honor and prestige in the world by not supporting and backing a Friend and Ally. Our trustworthiness as a Friend and Ally was diminished. We had decided to feed a friend to the wolves so the bleeding from the scratches we were getting with a PEACE TIME ECONOMY would end. That gave enemies of the United States time to rework their concepts and now implement a fully VALID method of defeating the US: long war by proxy.

Second, in the unintended and basically unseen part of this is the amount of Soviet production that had to go for supporting the weak North Viet Nam regime. By most accounts two to three entire armies of supplies, trucks, tanks, support vehicles and other stores and equipment were used up this way. And while South Viet Nam was going under they were chewing up yet *another* of these and the North would need to be resupplied *again*. The USSR was relatively quiescent globally during Viet Nam as they had no resources to spare. With the end of that they were still quite weak economically, but had an unscratched military and new confidence that International Communism would *win* against the West.

Third, in 1975 the Khmer Rouge, backed by North Viet Nam seized power in Cambodia via Civil War. Cambodia became a Communist nation. Estimates of the dead and those killed to purify the nation range from 1.7 million to 3 million people or roughly 20% of the population of the Nation were killed because of US retreat. It was a 'domino' that fell.

Fourth, in 1974 the Laotian government, no longer getting backing from the US faced its own Communist insurgency and that was backed by the North Viet Namese military. The US had thrown this Ally to the wolves, too. The government negotiated a hand over to Communist Pathet Lao. The royal family was killed and untold numbers fled the country to escape the 're-education camps' that served as places to brainwash those that would serve the Communists or kill those who would not. This was another 'domino' to fall.

Fifth, since going overland from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam would entail a deadly cocktail of Communist forces and have a high mortality rate, those that could flee from those places did so by boat. These are the 'Boat People' and they told of the horrors in their Nations perpetrated by Communists from their refugee camps in various places. During the 1980's this continued due to the lack of living circumstances in those Communist Nations as they were burdened by debt to the USSR and had no local economy to support that debt burden. Many were called 'economic refugees' and repatriated back to their Nations of origin. Approximately 1 million people were allowed to emigrate to the West or to better circumstances. This migration is a direct effect of the US leaving South Viet Nam and not supporting Allies, no matter how awful, because what they were facing was *worse*.

Next up, Iran. In 1979 the Islamic Fundamentalists overthrew the Shah and installed themselves into power. The Shah had been put in place by removing the elected government that the Allies had instantiated during WWII after invading Iran. The Invasion of Iran was to remove a pro-Fascist Shah from the throne and keep the Western oil supplies open. The democratic government was highly factionated with problems dating back to the 19th century. The Eisenhower Administration thought it better to re-install the Shah and get a reliable backer on the throne. The 1979 overthrow of the Shah in February, solidified in March and then given popular hearing in November was another Ally the United States had decided not to back under the Carter Administration. The US hostage crisis, in which the US did NOT respond effectively nor forcefully to invasion of the diplomatic compound not only lowered the estimation of the ability of the US to respond, but it weakened all of established diplomatic interchange and the concept of International Law and respect for National Sovereignty that went with it. The effects of this were many, but two major ones need be pointed out.

First, is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Staged in December 1979 while the US was heavily distracted with ineffectual 'yellow ribbons' and oak trees, the USSR saw a prime opportunity to use its recovering economy and prove, directly, its military might by taking over Afghanistan. The Carter Administration, unable to find the wherewithal to back an OPEN opposition to the USSR had decided on the clandestine route of arming insurgents with high tech weapons and skills to slowly grind against the Soviet military. This would only begin to bear any fruit in 1985 when some organization to militias in Afghanistan gave rise to an effective anti-Soviet campaign. Until then the Soviet Union was emboldened by its victory and expansion of power.

Secondly, the non-response to Iranian Fundamentalist Islamism led to a long series of further withdrawals, pull-backs and non-responsive episodes for the United States. President Carter had set the tone of the US being unable to effectively counter Radical Islamism.

Combining these two defeats for US prestige and inability to respond militarily led directly to the Soviet quest for International expansion and to the rise of Radical Islam which would aim to overthrow the entire Western conception of Nations.

The first of these events was in El Salvador and its Civil War in the early 1980's. In that both the US and USSR gave light supplies to each side and let that proxy war simmer on its own. The Soviet strategy was to keep a viable resistance alive so that it could be supported by further expansion. This was a trivial drain to US resources, but, combined with Afghanistan, the USSR was stretching to its limits.

Secondly, during the period of Soviet expansionism they had also set sights on Nicaragua, which is a key geographic point in Central America. By supporting the Sandinista in the long term from the 1960's onwards, the USSR was able to oust the Somoza government via clandestine support for the Sandinista and Daniel Ortega. In the 1980's this victory for the USSR would lead to a regime which impoverished its people and supported the FMLN in El Salvador. Again, the USSR had to add this to its support list as Nicaragua had proven incapable, under Communist management, of taking care of its people.

Thirdly, the Non-Aligned Movement of Nations swung sharply to an 'anti-imperialist' stance and for the USSR in 1979 during its meeting in Havana. This gave much diplomatic credence to an ascendant USSR and an anti-US and Western bias which would play out in the following decades. By not indicting Soviet aggression the Non-Aligned Movement became a partisan movement that could not hold to its basis of respecting National Sovereignty. Litanies against the US were called up for Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, but similar tracts were never brought up against the USSR in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, North Viet Nam and Nicaragua. This was a direct loss to not only the US, but global diplomacy, in which a patina of being 'Non-Aligned' could cover for overtly partisan viewpoints and attacks.

Fourthly, the Angolan Civil War which had simmered during the 1970's saw a large increase in US and Soviet support during the 1980's. Originally started in the early 1970's as a consequence of Castro's concept of spreading revolution 'on the cheap' by sending out 'advisors' to Nations with weak governments, Angola was one of those regimes that destabilized and fell into Civil War. The USSR increased support for their faction there and the US, realizing the USSR needed to be at least *matched* followed suit in the 1980's. This war would see a few truly huge battles but generally rumble on without victory for over a decade. Again, the USSR, by no longer needing active support in SE Asia, felt it could redirect manufacturing to support Communists elsewhere.

Fifthly, the Civil War in Mozambique, which had been going on for some time, saw increased Soviet Support and the regime turned harshly oppressive. Additionally famine struck the Nation and the number of deaths from the regime and famine were large. Here the USSR did not have the US to confront, but South Africa under its apartheid regime. While tacit support from the US did flow there, it was never as substantial as seen elsewhere in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Angola.

Sixthly, the destabilization of Somalia and Ethiopia led to the Ogaden War in the late 1970's and that simmering conflict continues to be a problem that is seen in the headlines to this day, long after the demise of the USSR. This was a direct proxy war of the superpowers between Somalia and Ethiopia and led to another of those conflicts that ended nowhere and still is fought even after the supports for it have been removed.

Seventh, the multiple attacks on the US in Beirut. The multiple Arab-Israeli wars led to a destabilization of the mixed ethnic, religious and social factions within Lebanon and saw Israel invade twice, in 1978 and 1982, to remove cross-border threats from the PLO. Under the Reagan Administration the US, in trying to stop the conflict, saw its Embassy bombed in 1983 with 63 killed, then the Marine Barracks bombing later that year with 241 killed, and then a SECOND attack on the US Embassy Annex in 1984 with 20 Lebanese and 2 US soldiers killed. The culprit for each of these was the newly formed Hezbollah that had grown directly from Iran and was being given tacit support by Syria if not direct aid by them. Because of that direct link with Iran, each of these incidents is considered in the realm of diplomatic niceties as acts of war that give cause and reason for Nations to respond to them via war. President Reagan did not do so, but there is no statute of limitations on those acts.

Eighth, the non response to these things led to further terrorist acts and further expansion against the US including: the Hezbollah Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985, the assassination of Alex Odeh in 1985, bombing of TWA Flight 840 in 1986 by the 'Arab Revolutionary Cells', the 1986 Berlin Disco bombing by Libya (to which the US offered a minor military reprisal to Libya), the 1986 Hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 by the Abu Nidal organization, the capture of the Japanese Red Army terrorist Yu Kikumura who had pipebombs while traveling on the NJ Turnpike on 12 APR 1988 on his way to NYC, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 by Libya, 25 JAN 1993 killings of CIA employees waiting at a traffic signal by Mir Aimal Kansi, 26 FEB 1993 WTC bombing, stopping the 1993 NYC Landmarks Bombing plot in June. This litany goes on and on, but culminates in a few critical acts: 1996 Khobar Towers bombing by Hezbollah, the bombings of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 by al Qaeda and the USS Cole bombing in 2000 by al Qaeda. These works demonstrate either separate or coordinated attacks across the network of Transnational Terrorist organizations emboldened by the lack of US response previously in Iran and Beirut and general weakness of the US as seen after Viet Nam. This litany continues on and on with some being 'lone deranged individual' or with attempted plots, like the Millenium bombing plot, that demonstrates organizational capability beyond a few individuals. All of this culminates to the 9/11 attacks on the US by al Qaeda.

Ninth, by not fighting Hezbollah and stopping its spread it had established itself in Argentina and attacked the AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos, Aires in 1994. The current outgrowth of Hezbollah to Venezuela under strongman Hugo Chavez is aided by the growth Hezbollah has been able to do in South America since its establishment there. Hezbollah is also responsible for the Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 in July 1994. Today Hezbollah operates via overt and covert means within the confines of the United States, as seen by the spate of arrests of Hezbollah and their sympathizers across the Nation. And those arrests indicate connections to Mexican narcotics rings and to Far Eastern goods counterfeiters on the grey and black markets.

Tenth, "Blackhawk Down" the Battle of Mogadishu. Some US Soldiers killed in a far off land trying to establish peace was too much for the Clinton Administration. Facing al Qaeda there was obviously more than America could stomach. Not that this became a recruiting point FOR al Qaeda... but it did.

All of these things are outgrowths or expansions due to the non-assertion of US power and sovereignty in support of its Allies and retreating before them.

Note that retreat from abroad does NOT bring security, does NOT bring peace and happiness and, generally gets a larger body count closer and closer to home.

The Jacksonian Party does NOT stand for US defeat and retreat on a global basis. Until folks stop attack the US, its Allies and its Friends, We the People will see no end to these attacks and will see more Nations fall to tyranny and repression.

Does a war go beyond three or four years?

"Run away! The bad men are too tough to fight, hide under the bed!"

"Surrender now!"

If you do not want to fight NOW, then expect to pay a higher price year on year as others see you as weak and failing and unable to assert your rights. And expect to pay that butchers bill closer and closer and closer to home. When, exactly, will standing up to a bully be worth it? When the knife is at your throat is a bit late. Actually, so is within shooting distance of your home. Hell, firing distance of the Nation is a bit much. So, beyond that... for me at least. Others may enjoy the feeling of a knife at their throats, I do not.

"Oh, but those are good American Soldiers who are dying!" And they VOLUNTEERED for the duty of fighting the Nation's fights for it and are willing to risk their lives for the Nation. And not honoring them and supporting the FIGHT of the NATION dishonors them more than anything else on this planet because you have shown yourself not worth dying FOR. They die FOR VICTORY, not DEFEAT.

"But all wars are useless!" Tell that to the dead on Iwo Jima, the dead on the beaches of Normandy, the dead buried across this Nation to fight to establish the Nation. The dead who fought so that YOU could HAVE liberty. If you think all wars are useless, then what will you think when it is YOUR turn to have your head chopped off for your beliefs? Or will you convert and submit and have no beliefs of your own?

"There is no end to this fighting!" Correct. Until mankind has liberty, freedom and the willingness to get along and agree to disagree on things, those wishing to impose their will are given fair opportunity to do so. The end to this fighting is the end to Liberty... the end to Freedom.

"But is all OUR fault for being imperialist/Western/racist/etc!" Then let them complain VOCALLY and at length. The Nation listens to such, as we are stuck listening to YOU. The question of HEARING you or CARING about you is something else again. By saying it is the fault of those being attacked, you are blaming the victim.

"Israel is the CAUSE of this!" I see. A territory was carved up as an Empire left it, given to another Empire, which then sub-divided it and said to the folks there: 'Here you go! You figure it out yourselves, you each have enough room to live together. If you cooperate." Miscalculation? Possibly. But one side took the path to Nation, to Justice, to Law and abided by its agreements. The other side, having the exact SAME chance, did nothing save kill and kill and kill and kill. How is THAT the fault of Israel? And, if you want to turn back the clock, then where does that turning STOP? And how, exactly, does that explain the interconnect, non-Islamic groups like ETA, IRA, FARC, and the various 'Red' groups?

"But we are NOW the cause of the problem!" Yes, fighting for liberty and freedom will always get you tyrannical enemies, for some reason. Care to surrender now?

"This isn't about freedom! It's about...." Fill in the blank for oil/imperialism/racism/convoluted conspiracies/the Pope/whatever. So, which Nations, exactly, has the United States subdued permanently and coerced to join as part of the Nation? Or that we have held at gun-point and said 'Do as we say, or else'? List, please! Name them. And not some minor flyspeck island Nation in the Pacific or Atlantic or some such. No, REAL Nations with populations over a few million folks that actually are living under US tyranny. Come on! That should be *easy*. I have yet to hear that list from *anyone* making this argument. Because there is no list to make.

"We are forcing our values on other people and that is wrong!" No, we free them from tyranny and allow them to make their OWN damn fool decisions on what they like or dislike. We cannot help it if most of those like freedom for individuals and make choices different than their ancestors. So sorry to hand over that burden to decide for oneself.

Every thing I have heard as 'a reason to leave' is an excuse for cowardice and indecision.

If you do not like the way We are fighting then hand out a way that WORKS better. Retreating and calling barbarians to be 'misunderstood' has gotten us death and more death and death all the way to Our Shores.

Want to leave Iraq? Tell you what, lets leave Germany, Japan and South Korea FIRST! Support that so we can get more people to FIGHT and we may need to leave them in a time frame like those three: decades of being there and peace being established. Push for this FIRST and you may be able to stress something close to a valid case. There that is a valid construction of what to do that will not endanger the Nation and, possibly, put enough 'boots on the ground' to eliminate ALL enemies in short order in Iraq.

But to do so, that means that you would not mind seeing THOSE troops committed to fighting actively. Otherwise you are asking for another Vietnam. And no good has come at that, except to make Our enemies bolder and diminish the Union and undermine it to the point of near collapse.

If you have no honor for the FIGHT then do not tell me of your honor for those doing OUR FIGHTING FOR US. That is dishonorable in the extreme. We have civilian control of the military and We the People honor Our commitments until We change Our mind through valid means.

Too bad the enemy that started all of this is gone.

The current ones would still enjoy our demise immensely.

The Military, The Elites and You

The following is a cross-posting from The Jacksonian Party. [updated 27 AUG 2006]

This is a personal perspective paper of The Jacksonian Party, and not part of the official Party Platform, yet. Yet being the operable word.

I have taken some time to look around at the 'Right' side of the political 'spectrum' going wobbly and falling apart. But doing just a teensy bit of research I found out a few things that I think is worth sharing with you to demonstrate why Jacksonianism is neither Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, or, indeed, any pro/anti or Coke/Pepsi choice.

First up is this lovely little item from The Quarterly Journal, No. 1 March 2003 (p.103):

At this point, it is easy to foresee that casualty aversion is not only a governmental problem. Hence, as Weinberger states, fighting in the current context will require a high level of public support. This assumption, largely driven by the U.S. experience in the Vietnam War, directly involves the public as a major actor in this debate. Charles Reiss, in February 2001, related elements of the Future Strategic Context for Defence to this: "The armed forces, both in peacetime and on operations, will come under greater public and pressure group scrutiny." Through this type of attitude, governments seem to project casualty phobia onto the public, and treat it as if it is a weakness in the nation to be fought. The media are the other foci of attention for these concerns in governments. Reiss mentions "the pressure from public opinion and the media for minimum casualties" This is perfectly illustrated by the declaration of U.S. General Wesley Clark after the Kosovo campaign: "When you start to lose these expensive machines (aircraft), the countdown starts against you. The headlines begin to shout, `NATO loses a second aircraft,' and the people ask, `How long can this go on?' Therefore, although governments recognize casualty aversion, they tend to attribute the pressure behind the phenomenon to the media and the public.

Yes, governments and the media project a lack of will to fight on the public... not the other way around. Fun, isn't that? Say how do you like being told by the government and media what is or is not your will to fight? Remember that there are those that want 'zero casualty warfare' in which flowers are strewn instead of bullets, and everyone sits in the campfire and sings together... while someone else sneaks up and slits your throat, I guess. I never could fathom that. But at least they are HONEST in the fact that they are pacifists and that 'no war is just'... or at least semi-honest, since they want all those 'black, brown and other people of color' to be freed, but then complain when that freedom must be paid for. They probably thought the best way to disarm someone out to kill you is to sit down at a conference table with coffee and donuts and figure out exactly when and how harshly you will be killed.

Worse than those are those that 'want to show their Conservative colors' and will boldly outwait the Liberal counterparts by a factor of two or three... these folks are *also* in the elite telling you how far you should go in purchasing liberty at the cost of lives. And both, quite frankly, are reprehensible and struggling with Viet Nam Syndrome. They have seen no war that we shouldn't run away from.

Now, since the good General Wesley Clark was involved, lets take a bit of a look at some further things from that same study (pp.105-106):

At first, the public seems to be the favorite source to which to attribute casualty aversion. Nevertheless, this is an assumption that is too easy to make. For example, several studies exist stating that the public is not casualty averse at all. In The Myth of the Reactive Public, Kull and Ramsay conduct an in-depth analysis of surveys done during recent conflicts. The results of this study are simple: the public is much more robust regarding casualties than initially expected. In particular, they reach this conclusion for the Gulf War, the crisis in Mogadishu, and the attack against the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon in 1986. After the images of the incident in Somalia were seen, the public wanted more U.S. involvement and retaliation. Likewise, U.S. public support reached its peak when severe losses occurred in the Gulf War and in the days following the terrorist attack in Lebanon. Dealing with the Vietnam War, Jeffrey Record comes to this surprising conclusion: “In retrospect, it is amazing that public support remained as strong as long as it did, given the war's geographic remoteness and the predominantly abstract quality of declared U.S. war aims." Initially, the polls were clear: the public did not respond by demanding an immediate withdrawal. Furthermore, they describe the misperceptions of the public with regard to the number of casualties. Their starting point for this study was a PIPAsurvey in 1999, where American people estimated that 172 U.S. soldiers died in Bosnia, whereas the U.S. actually had no casualties. This survey envisaged different scenarios of degradation. Each time, the public responded with a large majority demonstrating a will to reinforce or to retaliate. A similar survey by PIPA, in 1999, leads to the same conclusions.

Ah, the American people not only think that freedom can be bought with casualties but EXPECT IT! Even when there are ZERO actual casualties, the common folk of the US think that we have paid a price for freedom in blood. And do note that the incidents in Somalia and Bosnia and Kosovo are AFTER the end of the Cold War. Fascinating stuff, isn't it? But there is a worrisome conclusion, which starts to add context for today, and it is this from the same report (p. 121):

As soon as the ice of the Cold War melted, when nuclear deterrence was no longer the primary factor in the balance, nations came back to the ancient criteria of waging war. Hence, war with true soldiers on true battlefields again becomes possible. If the role of soldiers becomes central again, then casualty aversion - the ability or the reluctance to commit lives or suffer deaths for a cause - returns to the center of the debate.

Which is why the reports of the worst of goings-on in Iraq or Afghanistan are central and key to this conflict against Transnational Terrorism. Yes, we are back to the ancient criteria of war, but with 'modern sensibilities' of looking to take 'zero casualties'. And this is reflected by the pacifistic Left and by the wobbly Right: both of these 'sides' believe that there is a set 'limit' on how much the public is willing to take in the way of death and destruction in warfare. The Left gives a lower limit and the Right gives an upper one... as told to them by their ELITES. Yes, the Left and Right are BOTH guided by Elites that are telling them what is and is not acceptable for We the People to accept as a death toll in combat.

You do realize that in a Republic of Free People that *this* is also a degradation of responsibility and liberty? Go with a 'side' and follow its 'direction' and You lose Your voice by trying to join it *exactly* with others and NOT tell Your perspective as You see it. By wanting to be part of the 'crowd' or 'mass' or 'Left' or 'Right' or 'Conservative' or 'Liberal', individuals give up their RIGHT to have an independent telling *heard* and, instead, look for bloc-centered 'unity' and 'cohesion'. There is a WORD for joining together like a bundle of sticks and cohering as separates but losing your identity as an individual to form something stronger: Fascism.

And by deciding that the price is 'too high' or the war 'incompetently fought' and then 'calling for withdrawal' because we are 'in a quagmire' is the chorus chanting at the direction of their Elite. That Elite gets to edit the information coming in, form some 'well-read opinion' and then issue that opinion forth as the limit of validity for their part of the political 'spectrum'. A spectrum that seems to be bi-color in perspective, and are turning into shades of grey. And where does the everyday Citizen of the Republic fit in? Well, unless you like taking choral direction and repeating the songs to the drumbeat of your 'side'... you do NOT fit in. The MSM is, of course, giving the drum-beating extra reverb by ONLY reporting those things that support the defeatist drum-beat.

They will mis-report or just plain ignore factual information.

They will use the old maxim of local news: if it bleeds, it ledes.

They will not exercise editorial oversight on forged documents.

They will not come clean on all of the factual information they have nor make it available.

They will say that they 'never expected anything like this to happen' although they have been warned about it by their OWN professionals for over a decade.

They will not put news into historical context nor into timelines of events nor show surrounding information.

They will report on what Officials say that they have said and NOT look to see if they are being truthful.

They will try to treat individual terrorist groups as if they were independent and not inter-dependent.

They will report on staged events as if they were 'factual' and then say they are 'fake but accurate'.

They have become the exact same thing they established themselves as not being: Yellow Journalists. But their color of yellow is not jingoistic, it is cowardice and defeatism.

They think that the power of the press belongs to publishers. And they are wrong. It belongs to the People, and the People are living in the wonder era of Benjamin Franklin.

What is it that is happening in Iraq that is so bad? The death toll? Then lets put THAT into perspective, also. From Useless Knowledge comes this little ditty, and it does go on and on, so I will take a highly particular piece, but the deaths are put into perspective there in far more pointed terms than I am doing:

The military protection that we vitally need involves big costs of all kinds. One of these is that, even in peacetime, about 1,000 U.S. soldiers and sailors die every year from accidents, which is much higher than the per capita civilian accident rate. That's right, it's every year, in peacetime! (The reference for this is an item by Princeton University professor Jeffrey Herbst, on page A22 of the August 4, 1994 New York Times.) I'm not trying to say that the present death rate in Iraq is something to ignore, but it is a load that our big, rich country must bear, in order to stay free and safe.

Yes, the normal, annual death toll of being in the military in PEACETIME is 1,000/year. As a co-worker that had retired from the Marine Corps, then Federal Service with the CIA, and now works for a Federal Contractor said (and I paraphrase): 'Well, in a week of large scale exercises we lost 4 men. So Iraq [then just winding up the active combat part] looks to be about what you would expect of a large scale training exercise against an armed opponent.' I respect him because he did Marine BDA in Viet Nam... where, to make sure you chose the right target, YOU got to go on the patrol after it was hit. You were tasked to take care of it and you did.

But you are looking for figures! Ah, well lets give some of those, too... a nice graph of things leading up to 9/11 should do.




Taken from Population Bulletin 2004 - America's Military Population, as is the following citation:

Most military deaths are not combat related (see Figure 5). Mortality rates in the American military are lower than the general population because military personnel are younger and healthier than the average American. Servicemen and women undergo a rigorous health screening prior to induction or commissioning, and they have access to the largest health care delivery system in the world. In the early 1980s, there were slightly more than 110 deaths per 100,000 active-duty personnel per year, and the trend has been generally downward, albeit with dramatic reversals during the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War, and from 2001 to 2002 (the most recent data available by cause), reflecting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and subsequent military operations. The percentage of military deaths due to hostile action or terrorist attacks has not exceeded 1 percent, except in 1983, when a Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed; in 1991, during the Persian Gulf War; and in 2001, when the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11.


Military service is not necessarily a safe occupation even in peacetime. In most years, more than one-half of active-duty fatalities, and in some years as many as two-thirds of such fatalities, are attributable to accidents—primarily vehicle and training accidents. Far fewer fatalities are attributed to illness. On average, 18 percent of active duty fatalities each year are due to illness, with relatively little variation.


More than 100 military personnel take their own lives each year. When the armed forces were larger, the number exceeded 200 each year, although there is considerable annual variation. In the early 1980s, about 10 percent of military fatalities were self-inflicted. Military suicides rose in the late 1980s and peaked in the mid- 1990s at a rate more than double that of the early 1980s. Some analysts have attributed the increase in the 1980s in part to the Army’s experimental unit manning system, which made personnel management much more rigid and was accompanied by an increase in stress-related symptoms. The continued increase in suicides in the 1990s might have been affected by an increase in the rate of peacekeeping deployments after the end of the Cold War in Europe, resulting in increased family separations. The military suicide rate declined initially in 2001 and 2002, to about 11 percent, which is well below the rate for civilians of comparable ages. But the suicide rate did not recede to the level of the early 1980s; in fact it appears to have risen again during the military campaign in Iraq. In 2003, at least 22 service members committed suicide in Iraq alone. This represented about 14 percent of the non-hostile fire deaths in Iraq. Suicides accounted for 13.5 percent of deaths in the Army. Even with this recent increase, suicides represent a similar percentage of deaths in the military as among American civilians ages 20 to 34, which in 2000 was 14.6 percent of deaths among men, and 6.8 percent of deaths among women.


Homicides in the military are relatively low, around 5 percent of all military deaths—less than half the rate accounted for by suicide. In contrast, homicide is a major cause of death among young African American men in civilian life—accounting for 35 percent of deaths to African American civilian men ages 20 to 34 in 2000, and 11 percent of deaths among African American civilian women in this age group. The comparable 2000 figures for whites were 8 percent for men and 6 percent for women. African Americans face a lower risk of homicide in the military than in civilian life.

That is a pretty unvarnished view of things. So, in Iraq 18% of deaths are due to illness (which is an invariant, although climate changes the *nature* of the illnesses) and 14% of deaths are suicides. That is 32% of deaths due to non-combat causes. The first, by being invariant across the military may budge a bit due to combat related illnesses, like stress and battle fatigue, but outright sickness is invariant: the folks get their shots before they ship over there. And the suicide rate is measured as a percentage of deaths in theater. So a whopping 1/3 of deaths in Iraq are due to illness and suicide. Now, are THESE deaths being lumped in with the COMBAT deaths at those bodycount sites? Hopefully not, but if they are then you may want to cut them by 1/3 to get an idea of what the combat deaths look like there.

[UPDATE: reworking numbers at The Belmont Club got me the following:
Population study a few times, and it can be read as the 18% + 14% as illness and suicide are accounted separately, but there is weasle wording on the 14% in Iraq as 'part of the non-hostile deaths'. So that lumps it in with: accidents, illness and homicides. The 18% for illness is stated, previously, as invariant across the entire military, including Iraq. And as the actual death toll due to hostile fire for population size has been small, as cited by Wretchard... that is not going to make that percentage budge overmuch.

Now homicides are also an invariant at 5% across all the military deaths.

Accidents in peacetime account for 50% to 66% of all fatalities in the military, excluding illness, homicides and suicides.

Thus the relative invariants add up to: 18% + 5% + 50% = 73% due to illness, homicides and accidents *combined*. As given, and the article could have cleared this up with a few tables, added TO that is suicides. So with that you would get 100% of the non-combat total in Iraq, so renormalizing that 73% is 86% of that sub-set. I am working on this RT and expect to come up with a different answer than my original... I am coming up with 12% of the total of all deaths being suicides in Iraq. That puts the total of all non-combat deaths to combat deaths at a ration of 85% non-combat to 15% combat in Iraq in 2004.

Damn that's a dangerous business in peacetime!

Now, are all the death tolls ensuring that we are getting an accurate reading of that 15% or are they taking spillover from other categories and attributing them to combat deaths?

I would assume the answer is *yes* as the military likes to ensure that everything is properly categorized, filed, pigeonholed and such... reporters, on the other hand, along with partisan groups... well, they tend to take a 'broader view' of things.

Fun with numbers... will have to update my previous post

END UPDATE, changes coming, premise remains]

Now, WHY is this important? Well, lets take a look at what those Elites say the US population can actually stand in the way of deaths... and what has actually been measured via polling. And here we have an interesting bit of work show up in:

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF Strategy Essay Competition Essays 2000

Casualty Aversion: Implications for Policymakers and Senior Military Officers by Charles K. Hyde

Citation: Peter D. Feaver and Christopher Gelpi, “A Look at Casualty Aversion: How Many Deaths Are Acceptable? A Surprising Answer,” The Washington Post, November 7, 1999, B3.

Mission Name	Military Elite	Civilian Elite	Mass Public
Stabilize Congo	284	484	6,861
Prevent Iraqi WMD	6,016	19,045	29,853
Defend Taiwan	17,425	17,554	20,172

So, what is it that the Elites on the Left and Right are saying? That they are more *gutsy* than the military? Well, on average, yes, but remember that this spans all the way down to ZERO for the pacifists... so the range might be somewhat weighted towards lower numbers, but not by much. What is startling is that the American Public, in 1999, was prepared to 'go the distance' in Iraq and suffer way, way, way more than has been suffered by US forces at present... and that was under President Clinton, who was no 'gung-ho/fight 'em anywhere' sort of President, indeed he suffered the first WTC bombing, the African Embassy Bombings, the Khobar Towers Attack and the USS Cole attack and did, exactly, NADA. A few cruise missiles lobbed here and there do *not* a reprisal make.

And now that the rats in Iraq are trapped, found, killed or brought to justice after only 3 years... we hear that 30% of Americans have lost heart in the struggle. ONLY 30% after the damn continuous drumbeating by the MSM, the Left and now the Right? ONLY 30%? And since it is coming pretty much equally from 'Left' and 'Right', and probably dividing the 'two parties' somewhat, say 1/3 Republican and 2/3 Democrat going against. That pretty much fits in with the Jacksonian Electorate Proposition that the Nation is NOT 50/50, but 30/30/30/10. And the question is NOT about 'pulling out from Iraq'... but Crossing the Rubicon on a path to destruction.

If you think the few handfuls of deaths per month in Iraq is bad now, then wait until that grand and glorious defeat and retreat... with Iran emboldened, Saudi Arabia pushing Wahhabism harder, direct lines of supply to Syria for Hezbollah, Israel directly threatened by troops transported directly from Iran to Lebanon. Remember what happened after deciding that it was 'unwinnable' or 'the price was too high to pay' in South Viet Nam? Do the following ring any bells: Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, The Killing Fields, The Boat People, re-education camps, Cambodia, Laos, MIA, and so on. And do you remember the dishonoring of the American Soldiers who returned? Do you remember the phrase 'hollow military' and soon 'Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan'? And do you remember the US Diplomatic Compound in Iran, in 1979?

The very same Iran now doing their damnedest to field two Foreign Legions, destabilize the region, build nuclear weapons, annihilate Israel, kill the Sunni population of the Middle East. Do you want THEM to win? And then we can start to hear the litany of Nations terrorized and destroyed by Iran: Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan... and on and on so as to re-establish the Caliphate with themselves in control.

Americans have an awesome responsibility to themselves and those that are Our Friends and Allies. We ran in South Viet Nam. And Beirut. And Somalia.

We did not respond, as is Our Right as a Nation to Tehran, three times in Beirut, Khobar Towers, WTC Bombing, African Embassy Bombings, USS Cole....

That is how Our enemies see Us.

Our Government has been afraid to act because of the immediate repercussions, and Our Elites have told us that it is better to appease 'now' than to take a stand, as some people might just get killed. So we have let Americans be butchered and killed and done *nothing* and now the weak of heart complain at the mere *interest* on the bill that we have accumulated. Welsh on this bill for this friend, this time, against these enemies, and the butcher will come calling.

For all of Us.

You can kiss your political freedom of speech good-bye thanks to John McCain

My thanks to Austin Bay for pointing out this article at Real Clear Politics by Ryan Sager.

This is the key quote from the article [bolding mine]:

When Congress comes back into session, roughly 60 days before the November midterms, it will essentially be immune from criticism. That's because Congress -- acting, of course, only in the interest of "clean" politics -- passed a ban on ads that mention federal candidates' names in the window 60 days before the general election, as part of McCain-Feingold in 2002.

So, say the Senate takes up an immigration bill granting full amnesty to all illegal immigrants this fall -- it will be almost impossible for grassroots groups to advertise against it, because they won't be able to run ads during this period naming the people who are sponsoring or voting on the bills. Criticizing them by name during this window is against the law. You can't ask voters to "call Congressman [So-and-So]."

It's almost unbelievable, but it's the system we live under thanks to Sen. John McCain.

So all you bloggers in the US do remember, it is ILLEGAL to talk about the Candidate running for Office, but it *might* be OK to talk about the actual OFFICEHOLDER.

My recommendation: 1) use an off-shore blog hosting service, 2) ignore the law, post as you will, and then challenge the constitutionality of freedom of speech when it is not *paid* for by anyone.

As a Citizen you have the RIGHT to freedom of speech, and when you speak for YOURSELF the Congress shall not pass a law to restrict that.

This is a product of the Zero Party State, to ensure that all sitting Congressmen and Senators do *not* have to be answerable to the People.

That is called a Landed Nobility: powerful individuals not answerable to the will of the People and corroding the system of Representation so as to engineer *permanent* sinecured positions of High Office. It doesn't take a conspiracy to get you there, but the confluence of events is not a good one.

The Jacksonian Party and "proportionate response" in War

A look at who is calling for 'Proportionate Response' in War:

[19 JUL 2006] Catholic News Service - Washington -- "Lebanon's Maronite Catholic patriarch said he told U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney that Israel has a right to defend itself, but its reaction to Hezbollah actions is not proportionate."[Google Cache , Catholic Online News updated post]

[14 JUL 2006] Jerusalem Post Online Edition - Meanwhile, President Jacques Chirac said that the IDF was "totally disproportionate" and asked whether destroying Lebanon was not the ultimate goal.

[12 JUL 2006] Ynetnews - UK Foreign Office Minister, Kim Howells said, “We condemn this morning’s infiltration and rocket attacks by Hizbullah on northern Israel. We are particularly concerned by reports that Israeli soldiers may have been kidnapped or killed.

“Hizbullah’s actions will further escalate an already tense situation in the region. A further escalation is in no one’s interest. We call on all parties to take actions to promote a rapid and peaceful resolution of the crisis and urge that any Israeli action be both measured and proportionate,” he said.

There is one and only one way to look at this from the Jacksonian viewpoint :

"Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms." - Andrew Jackson

And the other quote of Jacksonians which explains WHAT Israel should do:

'We did not start this fight, but we sure, as hell, will END IT.' - Heard many times in many battles involving the Citizen Soldiers of the Republic

Indeed, peace and equitable peace... but fight until your enemy is vanquished or they have vanquished you. There is no other just way of it when one has been attacked. The only response is full out war, to the bitter end and defeat of the enemy. Leave 'Proportionate Response' to debates, but leave it OFF the battlefield.

The Lack of Foreign Policy

The following is a position paper of the Jacksonian Party.

President George Washington had a foreign policy for the United States that he counseled to the Union upon his stepping down from office: commonality between internal political factions so as to present an outward uniform Foreign Policy by leaving domestic disputes at the shoreline, friendship and trade with all Nations, and against involvement in foreign affairs and alliances. For the young Republic and even over two centuries later these words still ring true today as they did in 1797.

President James Monroe expanded upon that, calling upon European powers not to attempt to expand their Empires into the New World, but leave it free to its own affairs, thus giving the Monroe Doctrine as an outlook by the US upon the World. This outlook was drafted by John Quincy Adams during his time of Secretary of State and pushed forward hard when he was elected as President. President John Quincy Adams tried to get other governments in the Western Hemisphere to join together with the US so as to present a unified outlook upon European expansionism and to exclude such expansion from the New World. This outlook held so well that only in 1904 did President Theodore Roosevelt give its Corollary:

"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power."

Yes, this is where folks started looking to the US to be a Policeman! But do note the proviso given that things would really need to get out of hand before the US would look to intervene in the Western Hemisphere. This, however, did not last long and in a bit more than a decade President Woodrow Wilson looked towards a *new* Foreign Policy for the US that involved the World. Having won re-election on an isolationist and 'protect American interests and shipping' concept he soon found himself dragged into the World War that was going on. He also carried on the tradition of actually getting *involved* in the affairs of Western Hemisphere governments and sending troops to 'Banana Republics' to bring them into order. The "walk softly and carry a big stick" had been expanded to include "and swing that stick hard on anyone that doesn't agree with you." Be that as it may, President Wilson could see that his own policy and that of staying disentangled from foreign affairs was starting to lead to more global problems that could be ameliorated *if* the US could be involved. The idea of an International Counsel was put into the Treaty of Versailles and called forth the League of Nations.

The track record of the United States, being that of an isolationist nation that espouses trade and National Sovereignty, but no foreign entanglements could not be overcome, and the US did *not* join the League of Nations. Many accredit this for a direct cause to the Second World War, but, in truth, the League was toothless, moribund, catered to dictators and had hard problems getting any sort of agreement on *anything*. Just like the UN. The expansion of Communism, Fascism and Japanese Imperialism all went on unhindered by the League and there was nothing that any Nation was willing to do about it, especially the US. The structure of the League or UN in, and of, itself cannot lead to *any* form of good policing of worldwide problems that had NOT been previously and BETTER addressed by International Diplomacy between Nations. The later UN did NOT prevent the rise of the Warsaw Pact nor of NATO nor of protecting the 'rights of man' when put under the Communist heel of oppression. And the UN has proven inept, cowardly and abusive of peacekeeping missions, actively exploiting and neglecting those they are meant to care for.

President Harry S. Truman put forth the post-WWII Doctrine for the US of emergency aid to keep a failing Nation independent so it could reorganize itself. This also supported the concept of Containment for the USSR and Communism as a whole, so that it would not use resources of one Nation to destabilize another Nation. As Communism is based on a global and transnationalist ideal, this put the US into direct Foreign Policy conflict with the USSR and Communist regimes. As these philosophical battlelines were drawn and took hold, the world started into a period of armed stasis in which Nuclear Weaponry gave rise to Mutual Assured Destruction as a de facto outlook between these two sides. This was the reductio ad absurdism of nuclear devices: once used by either side, the other promised unlimited and wholesale use of their arsenal. By doing this Deterrence came into being as a way to keep expansionism in check and crystallized faultering Nations to one side or the other.

What this engendered, however, for US Domestic Policy, was a slow erosion of the political basis of the Truman Doctrine. To stop the expansion of Communism the US would have to get involved in smaller foreign wars so as to support faltering regimes, beyond mere relief aid. South Korea and South Viet Nam are two such wars that embodied this, but the shift in public opinion as the post-war generation came into the voting segment of the population was one of denial and horror at this. Fighting foreign wars to *stop* Communism actually put the US as an *ally* to totalitarian, dictatorial and even fascistic regimes. They did not see that the *other side* brutally 're-educated' populations, impoverished them and then used them as pawns for further expansionism. The loss of American lives brought home by the new media of television, gave graphic depiction of war as it had not been seen in the US since the Civil War. A re-alignment took place as those that had supported 19th Century liberalism were overthrown in one of the two major political parties in the US and replaced by transnationalists and those wishing to put forth a globalist agenda.

That tectonic shift in the late 1960's opened up a rift in US politics then and is still felt to this day. The Truman Doctrine, for all of its faults, actually *worked* but by means it was NOT expected to: economics. The USSR and China needed to support new communist regimes and had to do so from a limited and near pre-industrial base. The Soviet Union, in particular, found itself draining economic lifeblood into North Viet Nam and further into Laos and Cambodia after the US left. This left the USSR with a *victory* but one that was draining their economy white. Still, the Cold War continued and to get any benefit from expansion they actually had to *expand* and thus moved to export revolution to various Central and South American Nations and, once Viet Nam was won, almost immediately into Afghanistan. That fast shift of fronts to exploit a Western weak area proved to be the last thing the USSR needed and US support of asymmetrical warfare in which one individual with a high tech weapon could take out multi-million dollar aircraft proved to be too much for the USSR. But, as seen elsewhere, this stagnation and decay led to greater problems as those involved in radical Islam used fighting the USSR as a means to coalesce together. Further, the USSR started to suffer internal criminal activity at a large scale and even problems with old internal and external religious sects. Of this latter the AUM Shinrikyo has still proven to be the most unsettling as they used a potent brainwashing combination to gain entree to heavy military industrial capabilities.

The actual blows struck by Poland to disintegrate the Warsaw Pact and the entire Communist Bloc brought the edifice of the USSR down. Unfortunately, in that post-Cold War era, President GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush all have not put forth *any* coherent and understandable foreign policy framework with which the United States may actually apply fairly to the World. The supporters of Transnationalism are degrading the Nation State system and offering only Elite Utopian Tyranny in its place, or, even worse,a Dystopic Fantasy of a Caliphate.

Those that support the concept that Free Trade Everywhere encourages liberty have *still* to address the problem of China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Cuba, and a host of smaller failed Nations that are dotting the global landscape under oppression *with* Free Trade. In point of fact, Free Trade and 'low cost goods' have given the enemies of the US cheap and easy access to goods to HURT the US and liberty as a whole. Further, NAFTA has only served to export Mexican unemployment to the US even while the 15% of US companies in Mexico EMPLOY 40% of its workforce. This, must end as such agreements without harsh enforcement lead to the decay of industry, agriculture and sovereignty for the US.

Isolationism, however, has died a death of 3,000 in the Transnational Terrorist attacks of 9/11. Returning to *simple* isolationism will NOT work and the concept that leaving foreign Nations to their own problems since they will *not* be visited upon the US is now one of burying one's head in the sand and denying the world exists. And leaves your behind as an easy target for passers-by.

Globalism has failed TWICE via the League of Nations and the United Nations and *must* be given up as a conceptual framework for Foreign Policy. The UN, in particular, serves only as a support mechanism for tyranny and a way to export armed abuse to those who have fallen victim TO tyranny. The UN must be abolished as it no longer serves any good, save as banking for tyranny and support of same.

The United States should adhere to its Foreign Policy roots and re-instate them in new and harsher form than ever before. These roots, as previously talked about by the Jacksonian Party are simple to understand, but NOT simplistic in how they would be applied. In overview they are adhering to the concept that the ONLY law between Nations is that which is agreed to via DIPLOMACY between them and then enacted by their Governments. This includes a return to Jus ad bellum and the entire system of citing and waging Just War.

On Free Trade the simple policy of giving it to the Friends and Allies of the US so as to support them and encourage their growth is one that is honorable in both its outlook and conception. Those that wish mere *trade* with the US, but hold neither pro-/anti- views towards the Nation may pay a TARIFF upon their goods for ENTRY into the US market. If they will not honor the US with friendship, then they shall BUILD us with their MONEY. So long as they are not an enemy and if they go through Friend or Ally those goods gain no tariff as this SUPPORTS our Friends and Allies as middlemen with their 'cut'. And to those that are against the US: no trade of their goods either directly or via Our Friends and Allies to Our shores. We can do without those who hate us.

In support of our Friends and Allies, every means necessary to bring opposing, belligerent or just plain lax regimes into line should be used. Two modern examples of this approach are given for thought:

1) North Korea - China saved North Korea from destruction during the Korean War and should be held accountable for that activity. As they supply the bulk of ALL North Korean food and goods, China is a key to ending the threats from North Korea. To that end, China should be told that they OWN this problem on the 'You wanted them then, they are Yours now', concept. Further, China should be told that if they do *nothing* then the US will seek to encourage its Friends and Allies in the region to arm themselves with advanced attack and defense capabilities. These Nations would include: Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. If China further refuses to deal with North Korea's proliferation and threats problems, then China shall be de-listed for US trade and Taiwan added for full and FREE TRADE to exclude all of Red China's products and companies. China can pay a 10% entry to market tariff for selling in the US. North Korea is NOT the problem of the US and we do NOT appreciate being dragged into this abdication of responsibility amongst Communist regimes. You wanted that sorry place, now You clean it up.

2) Iran - Many say that the US has *no* levers to pull in Iran. They are incorrect. Iran has been suffering a number of internal uprisings and demonstrations and has had to crack down with its only reliable forces to keep the Nation together. As the US has strong Kurdish affiliation, we should encourage the Kurds to work with their brothers across the border to join together. This would require secession of the Kurdish lands in Iran and the US would *also* guarantee that any ethnic minorities in that area that JOINED with the Kurds would also get protection. As the US currently has 23,000 troops that will not be deployed from Germany to Iraq, they are now available for re-deployment. Iran should also be brought to trial in Iraq for their involvement with militias, sending non-uniformed military and establishing Intelligence operations on Iraqi soil. By supporting this, the US and New Iraqi Army can finally extinguish the Shia militias and seal the Iran/Iraq border, while shifting troops into the Kurdish provinces to support the Iranian Kurds and other minorities. This becomes an issue of protecting minority rights and human rights and National sovereignty and NOT one of a nuclear armed Iran. Now that Iran has moved Israel and Lebanon to the front pages, it is time to move Iran to them. Hurting TWO allies in the region: Israel and Iraq. Plus looking to destabilize the nascent democracy of Lebanon. Iran 'deserves' this sort of treatment and to have their bluff called and the stakes raised.

As a superpower the US can 'raise' stakes beyond anything that other Nations can do, even China. Still, by acting respectfully, responsibly and ADHERING TO PRINCIPLES the US can work its way through troubled times by doing things other Nations do not *expect* us to do. We must find ways to SUPPORT those Nations and Peoples who support US and give them Our Friendship and Support so that they may embrace freedom, liberty and democratic governance.

The US has NO Foreign Policy that anyone can articulate or even understand, and without that Our course amongst Nations is random and adrift and prone to reactions against hurts until the Ship of State is lost. An easy to understand Foreign Policy need not be simplistic, but it takes actual creativity and BELIEF in the ideals purported to make it work. Apparently this current and the past couple of previous administrations did not have either, and so we are without a course nor helmsman in the tempest of our times.

That must end.

Or We the People will be *at* an end.

Supporting Individuals

This is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

The Founder of this Party has firm and stated beliefs for not voting for any member of either House of Congress or the Elected Executives as they have abdicated their responsibilities and duties to the Constitution.

As a Party, however, The Jacksonian Party at this current time has to look at whatever the current Zero Party State coughs up, like a ragged hairball. So even while displeased with the Two Parties, The Jacksonian Party does support those individuals that appear to at least be in the same plane of existence and time-continuum and planet as the United States now occupies.

These individuals are rare.

One of them is Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn). Mr. Lieberman is facing a primary challenge in his home state by an individual that is a favorite of Leftists, but has few connections with reality and his actual State that he is running from, beyond being a wealthy individual residing there. Bull Moose sees this as some form of JFK vs McGovern ideological tussle within the Democratic Party, in which the Left seeks to oust Mr. Lieberman so as to gain ideological purity.

Luckily, Mr. Lieberman is gathering votes for an Independent run, should the Democratic primary go against him.

On the plus side Mr. Lieberman has always been strong on support of the Armed Forces, believes that Victory is a worthy goal in Iraq and has openly stated his support of the Armed Forces of the United States and has gained much ire from the Left in this doing. Further, he is NOT a Seatwarmer left over from the 99th Congress having first been elected to the 101st Congress. So at least he has not BROKEN that promise, although not been as strong a proponent as one could like on actually *fixing* the problem of illegal entry and staying in this Nation. On many other things Mr. Lieberman generally votes to the left of the midpoint between the Two Parties, but he is clear on the need for a viable Nation and the defense of it.

Thusly, while the individual who is the Founder of The Jacksonian Party could not, in good conscience, actually vote for Mr. Lieberman for *anything*, the actual Jacksonian Party urges individuals in Connecticut to support Mr. Lieberman's run for re-election as he is the closest thing to a Jacksonian within the entire Democratic Party. His staying power to those touchstones is admirable and commendable and speaks highly and deeply of his convictions to keep the Nation secure. In attitude and speaking ability Mr. Lieberman comes across as one's stodgy Uncle that everyone in the family dearly loves *because* he is plain and dependable and reliable.

Mr. Lieberman is one of the few individuals from either of the Two Parties in the Zero Party State that has those qualities that put him within that sphere known as 'Jacksonianism'. He does not adhere to that in words and often gives other indications to moderation and old style liberalism in his activities. For keeping to those things that make the Nation secure and supporting the Armed Forces and the need for Victory, Mr. Lieberman is one of the few *sane* voices left in either House of Congress.

If Mr. Lieberman merely dropped out of the race after losing a Democratic primary, one must think that the upcoming election would be one of meager turnout and close division between the ideologues who did come out to vote. It would be a 50/50 election... because the Center would have dropped out and wants no part of EITHER the Left or the Right. In that Connecticut is a microcosm of the Nation: close and nasty elections with the majority staying home.

The Jacksonian Party formally SUPPORTS the Candidacy and Re-Election to the Senate of Joseph I. Lieberman.

Give 'em Hell, Joe!

Or at least a *lot* of Heck.

"Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error." - Andrew Jackson

Our Union: It must be preserved

"Our Union: It must be preserved." - Andrew Jackson , President Jackson's toast at a Jefferson Day dinner, April 13, 1830.

On this day We the People gather to honor Our Nation, wherever We may be...

From lonely wastelands on foreign soil to Our own backyards.

We give honor and thanks to this Republic of Free People and pledge Ourselves once more to keeping it whole.

And give thanks to those that make such freedom possible, by guarding the Nation and giving those who oppose it reason to tremble in fear for denying that Free People shall be Free.

“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defence and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” - Andrew Jackson.

Federalism, Accountability and the Union

The following is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

The compact between We the People arose in 1787 due to the problems with the previous joining under the Articles of Confederation, which left States without means to protect themselves as integral units of a greater United States and need to carry out heavy taxation for individual defense of their States. In this era the States were Sovereigns and gave very little over to the Government of the United States, including the power to raise a militia to defend the United States as a whole. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-87 gave rise to uprisings across the States due to the highly non-representative nature of many States and how they implemented laws and the harshness of placing those on the margins of society in the deepest debt to pay for the budget of the State. Those poorest of individuals saw no recompense in their taxation and, indeed, noted that it was falling disproportionately upon those least able to pay, while those in more urban areas paid far less in proportion.

With this in mind, the Annapolis Constitutional Convention of 1786 called for a greater convention which became the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787 set about to right these wrongs by forming a stronger Federation amongst the States, so that some burdens would be shared equally so that all of the States would be defended as a whole. Additionally, as paying for the Revolutionary War had still not been done, a higher commerce regulation and taxation authority needed to be set-up so that the debt of We the People could be paid in-full for help given.

As drafted and ratified the Constitution of the United States gives States autonomy *within* the United States so long as there is regularity but not necessarily identicality in due process upholding of rights for the People. Further the States cannot regulate interstate commerce, nor impose taxation one upon the other for that internal trades, save in the current instance of alcoholic beverages which is a hold over of the repeal of Amendment XVIII by Amendment XXI. And the States may keep Militia's, but they will be paid for from the Federal budget and fall under all laws set by the Federal Government for them in training and adjudication of military use. The States may call upon such forces for internal problems, as needed, but these forces are first and foremost, to protect the Union.

Further in areas of Foreign Policy, Treaties, Commerce with Foreign Nations and in protection of the Union, the Federal Government is formed to administer each of these areas and ensure that the Nation is defended and protected, and that the Laws of the Land are administered equally and without favor or prejudice for We the People. Outside of these things addressing the externals of the Nation and those few things seen as necessary to actually *have* a Federal Government to uphold these things, all other power and rights rests with the States and the People. In point of fact the Constitution ensures that the recognition is that the Federal Government is *granted* these few rights and powers By the People to do these things for the good of All the People.

When any member of the Citizenry joins the Federal Government, be it as President, Congressman or Senator, Supreme Court Justice, or even the man mowing the lawn employed by the Federal Government for grounds maintenance, each must Swear and Uphold an Oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. Be they in the political arms or in the military or the civil service in its varieties, each and every individual who takes part in the government to help oversee the Nation's needs takes such Oath and is expected to uphold such and keep all commitments that they are empowered to make by the Government as a whole. Those that are not empowered may not do so, even if they have *appearance* of power, as mere appearance is not the actuality of the thing itself as due Warrants to spend on the behalf of the People is necessary and must be shown and demonstrated on the civil service side. Appropriations and their use is carried out in the First by Congress and in the Second by the Executive as Head of Government.

Thus we come to the crux of the State of the Union by this Federal Government in this year of 2006. The years and decades leading up to this year have not been easy ones and the previous century has seen three Global Conflicts, Two World Wars by name and the Cold War, and the arising of groups that no longer abide by the Peace of Westphalia and seek to diminish or destroy the system of Nation States. Thus those individuals that come together as groups seek to give rise to Transnationalism so that the individual Nation State is no longer considered a Sovereign. A great number espouse that Progressivism in its modern form, be the basis for this broader community. For some decades these individuals have been joined by those using Terrorism to assert goals and ideology that no Nation State follows and force such upon Nations via means of terrorizing Citizens of Nations.

Progressivists work within Nations to diminish the role of the National Government and give rise to conceptions that the concept of a Nation is absurd and useless in modern times, so that such things as National Boundaries, National Sovereignty and, indeed, National Identity should fall by the wayside to a larger, global grouping of individuals via other means. By fighting all laws and activities that seek to define and protect Nations internally, the Progressivists work ardently at undermining individual Nation States so that they will become, in essence, meaningless administrative units more amenable to some form of global group oversight. And as the proponents of such, Progressivists assert that as the formularies of this conception, that they are the best and most able to be that oversight group.

Terrorists seek this very same thing, but do so from outside the context of Nation States and undermine the legitimacy of them by using Force of Arms outside of the Geneva Conventions in an effort to de-legitimize National Militaries and get reactions from Nations that are more brutal and authoritarian. In that reaction the Sovereign Government will *appear* to act similarly to terrorists and decrease their legitimacy until the Citizenry cannot tell the difference between the two and terrorist goals will be seen as just another variety of goals that have the same legitimacy as that of their Government. Once this is done, the National Identity and National Sovereignty is weakened and Terrorists can truly impose their beliefs by dint of being seen as no different from the repressive Governments they have brought about. And, as such Terrorists espouse global conceptions of the World, be it radical religious beliefs, economic beliefs and/or social beliefs, they seek to impose this broader conception upon the world via this means.

The United States of America has been specifically targeted by both of these concepts as it is the sole remaining superpower after the Cold War and that its strength of National Identity formed of radical individualism from the late 18th century is anathema to the goals of Transnationalists of all stripes and order. Being born of Revolution, they see the United States in its adherence to the goals of that Revolution to be out of step with more modern conceptions of Revolution and so seek to delegitimize its Revolution in various ways. Both internally amongst the Citizenry and externally by Terrorists the United States has been and continues to be weakened as a Concept born of Revolution to ensure the greatest Freedom to its People with the Least amount of Government. Transnationalists encourage National Sovereignty to be abridged until it is broken and that National Identity of a Free People is less important than group identities and that as power is derived from the People that smaller units of 'People Power' can be employed all though such groupings do NOT represent the People as a whole, but a sub-group or division or clustering of them.

What these Transnationalists forget, however, and that We the People must remember, is that each State within the Union is a Sovereign Entity in and of itself, within the confines of the larger Federation. By attacking the Union and diminishing it, We the People as a whole may seek to reinforce the Union via the States. In the older days of the Republic means and methods to give States broad oversight into who goes into the political arms of control of the Federal Government were set in place. The ability of the States to assert direct influence and, indeed, control over the Federal Government by these means was assured. This was done immediately in Article I, Section 2, reading in part:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

And in Section 3 to cover the Senate:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

[and later, skipping the 6 years and choosing thereof]

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

[and]


AMENDMENT XVII, Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

[and]


Section 4

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Taken as a whole, the right of the People to Vote directly for their Representative and Senator is given via the States, that are to choose such means as to give voice to that vote. Notice that the State is given supremacy in deciding the manner and means that such representation of their People may be done. The burden of actually getting these means in place falls to the States. And as the earliest Congresses were chosen, lawfully and legally, by the legislatures of the States to send such Representatives and Senators. This is the entire concept of the Electoral College writ small and first: the States provide the Representatives in accordance with the People of their State in manner made by the State.

We the People have been told, time and again, that the Nation we live in is a Democracy. It is *not* a direct democracy that is the categorical necessity to be a full Democracy. The United States is a Republic that uses representational democracy as its means to create government. And as part of that representational schema, as laid out by the Constitution, the States hold the highest decision making power of who, exactly, is put in place to represent the People in the Federal Government's legislative branches and, via the Electoral College, the President. By blurring the boundaries between Representational Democracy and Direct Democracy, We the People have been ill-served in thinking that we are in the latter and not the former. In a Representational Democracy as given by the Constitution, Accountability *begins* by the States, while in a Direct Democracy accountability is only available via recall to the People for each level of Government. By placing a Sovereign and Representational layer between the People and the Federal Government, additional accountability and checks and balances of Power are available.

The Jacksonian Party adheres to this balancing of Power as given via the Constitution as it allows for speedy condemnation and accountability of the Federal Government BETWEEN elections and makes available means to adjust the Federal Power when it is not used to serve the Union and the States thereof. As a Republic that uses Representational Democratic means to give checks and balances to power and responsibility, the United States of America offers multiple means to ensure that Federal Power is not abused, nor that States become authoritarian towards their Citizenry. The goal of this structure is set out fully in the Preamble of the Constitution and Government, at all levels, is but one MEANS for the People to adhere to their responsibilities to ensure the Nation remains United and Justly administered to the good of the People.

Thusly, the Federal Government of the United States needs to be held accountable by the STATES for the following:

1) Invasion of the Union by Mexico using various incursions and seeking to move their people over the boarder to meet illegitimate *labor needs* of such organizations in the United States that benefit from such slave labor. According to the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Territory of the United States has been breached by Mexican Federal Military and Police, even unto incidents of weapons discharge by such intruders. This is covered in the here and gives evidence from the Federal Government itself that 216 incursions have happened between 1996 and 2005. Each and every incursion by the forces of one Sovereign Nation upon another without due authorization by the second Nation is known as an invasion. This entire conception of Casus Belli giving rise to Jus ad bellum is gone over for other contexts, but the overall diplomatic conception is valid globally and is part of how Nation States agree to interact with each other.

By *not* responding to each and every incident via Diplomatic means, two Presidential Administrations are at fault for not enforcing National Sovereignty and asserting the right of the United States to have its territory free from Foreign influence. This is a clear and direct violation of the Oath of Office sworn to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

By this lack of response the individual States are given the burden to defend themselves and worry about their individual sovereignty as States. By doing so the social compact of We the People put in place in 1787 is abridged in WHOLE.

The Jacksonian Party calls upon the Governors of the States to ask this current President exactly *why* he is abdicating his Oath of Office and let this individual know that if the Federal Government cannot protect the States, then the States, themselves, will no longer be bound by this agreement and will seek to bring a New Constitutional Convention in place so as to fix this problem and ensure that the powers available to protect the Nation are actually *used*.

2) From the 99th Congress to the present Congress remains a promise by the 99th onwards that Congress shall, indeed, put in place measures to protect the National Borders so as to ensure National Sovereignty for the United States. This is to uphold their Oaths, one and all, to the Constitution. That was first solemnly promised in 1986. At the 20 year mark no Congress has done this thing nor has even proposed to do so nor has even spent the necessary funds to investigate the means and methods to secure the Borders.

Note that over these past two decades congress has changed hands and some number of seats overturned from party to party so all political parties that have sat in the majority are at fault in both houses of Congress. This is a taint that is equally shared from 1986 onwards and adheres to each and every past and present member of each and every Congress since the 99th.

The Congress, although it can set the regulation of the time and place of elections, may not overstep its bounds there. Further, as each member of the House is seen as a co-equal in stature to the member of the more numerous State Legislative bodies, they are also under the same accountability to that State as they are to the Union as a whole. And as the Legislature of each State validates that the position of each Representative is given by the People, it also serves as the stopping point to call that Representative to account and, in the end, to give writ if a member of the House of Representatives is no longer representing the State or its People. This same logic and methodology is valid and has been tested by *recall* elections from States. But the ultimate power for such is given to the Legislature of each State.

Thusly, if the State Legislature sees that its Representatives to Congress from that State are not working to the good of the Union to protect it or to ensure the Sovereignty of that State within the Union, they may give writ to recall some or ALL of their Representatives and use such necessary powers as to either appoint or elect new members.

Those States that have been ill-served by the abdication of National Security by Congress, which is to say the entire Union of States as a threat to One is a threat to All under the Federal system, can recall their Representatives from the House and deny them validity in representation of that State by an Act of that Legislature.

The Jacksonian Party supports this concept in full as the States are NOT to be supplicants to a Federal Government to *plead* for protection, nor are its Representatives to act as unaccountable Nobility to Reign over the United States instead of merely govern it. Those that have been elected to govern no longer accept that this is their foremost function as individuals and that such governance must be equally applied so that the entire Union is protected first and above all other things.

3) National Security is being abridged by the personnel of the Federal Government and by various members of Congress that have access to such knowledge as is their right by sitting within the Congress and having oversight on these parts of the Government. Over the past few years multiple and numerous *leaks* of classified information on various projects and programs have happened. The *leaking* has been directly to the press, for the most part, and has served various internal agenda's of both the leakers and the press. Each and every one of these is unlawful, and the upholding of the administration of such laws is upon the Executive Branch. The President as Head of Government has not ensured that the laws regarding National Security have been robustly administered and that guilty individuals tracked down, found, and brought to Justice.

The proper means for any individual employed within the Federal Government, when misdeeds or illegal activity may be occurring, is to go to the Inspector General that has independent oversight for that Agency and/or Branch of the Executive. If this, once done, brings into suspicion that the Inspector General has been compromised, then that individual *must* go up the chain to the *next* Inspector General, or, lacking that, go to Federal police, such as the FBI, to look into the matter. If, at that point, the individual sees an investigation being countered by higher up the chain, that individual absolutely *must* go to Congress. Executive abuse at that level needs instant Congressional investigation so as to keep the Executive from seizing power or turning Federal power to their own means.

At no point in this entire chain, which is laid out for each individual in the Federal Government, is the *press* mentioned. The press is not a part of government. The press has no oversight by the People being, instead, a means of the People to communicate with each other on things they find of interest. The press, by having no oversight function, and by having no legal place in the chain of command and accountability, sits outside the legal context for means of redress of problems within the Government on issues of abuse of power, wasteful spending and similar.

Any individual that goes to the press and gives unauthorized disclosure of Federal information is committing an unlawful act. This applies from the lowliest janitor to the highest members of Congress. And the declassification authority for classified information rests solely and completely upon the President who then appoints others to administer such and those individuals have written confirmation of their ability to do so. Congressmen do *not* get that via the laws they have drafted.

The Jacksonian Party sees individuals and groups encouraging leaks to serve political purposes which do not benefit the Nation as a whole and, in point of fact, endanger the individuals in the Military protecting this Nation. Further, by giving such information out, those that seek to undermine the United States are given knowledge on means and methods used to track them down and stifle their operations. Each and every leaker of classified information, or even normal Governmental information not released either by normal bureaucratic acts or via the Freedom of Information Act, needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for violating their Oath of Office, for putting mere partisan political views above those of the National Interest and for undermining the entire faith of the People in its Government. By degrading the National Security and Interest, such individuals put Us all at peril to personal ends, and are thus abusing their positions of trust to the detriment of the Union.

4) A number of municipal areas have declared themselves to be 'Sanctuaries' for illegal aliens. In this doing each of these municipal units have abrogated the Constitution and have declared their separation from the Union by declaring that they will no longer abide by it. As has been written previously, this is a direct abrogation of all 6 Articles of the Constitution and some number of Amendments, but most particularly Amendment XIII outlawing slavery save as a means of punishment. In a Federal Republic, all areas agree to abide by and uphold the law of the land, which in the case of the United States, is the Constitution. The Constitution and all the resultant Government and laws that come from it, are not a Chinese Menu system of 'choose one from column A and two from column B'. In point of fact it is an all-or-nothing deal with respect to the entirety of the Union. We the People are enjoined to make the Union more perfect via legal means and to adhere to even unjust laws will seeking redress to end such laws. One may not seek to enforce a law at whimsy nor to say 'it is unjust, I will not administer it'. What one must do is go through the proper channels to address such problems via the Federal distribution of powers amongst the entirety of the Union.

To seek to not uphold sections of the law that is applied to the totality of the Union is an act known as Secession. By municipalities deciding that some Federal laws shall not be upheld and that the powers granted by the People to the Federal Government are ones they do not wish to follow, these areas do not seek proper redress of grievances and bad law via legislation and the courts, but, instead, establish law by Fiat. At that point they have broken with the binding document and its backing and are no longer members of the Union, and by harboring those that are here illegally, they put at peril the entire system of laws of the Union and abdicate their responsibility in upholding the National Security. Until such laws are either over-ruled by the courts or changed by the Congress and signed by the President they remain in force for the entirety of the Union.

The Jacksonian Party supports all States in the ending of this secessionary movement so that the Union itself is not undone. For those States that contain such, these municipalities need to be brought into line via States laws for following the laws of the Union. Further, All States need to lobby the Congress and the Executive to get these secessionary areas back into the Union via any and all means, and those within them to only return to the United States as Citizens after reading an Oath of fealty to the United States and then having their right to vote and lobby government stripped from them for the rest of their lives. This is preferable to Civil War.

5) Lastly, but not least, is the mis-expenditure of the People's money by Congress. This is known as 'earmarking' and more commonly as 'pork barrel spending', or 'pork'. This process in one in which the funds of the People are put to use for projects personally inserted by a Congressman or Senator for their own State or District. This is a direct abuse of the power of the purse by Congress as such projects and programs have no legitimate need as presented to the Government as a whole. Further, these projects often are only contained in obscure and hidden Congressional budgetary documents that are *not* a part of the final budget line iteming NOR available to the public at any time.

This has progressed into a National abuse of money so that Federal funds are filtered through lobbyists and extended family of Congressmen and Senators and finds its way *back* to them either for campaigning or as personal funds. The argument is made that some States *need* some projects that just can't be made on a National level and that the State is too poor to fund itself. The counter-argument is that the State agreed to keep to its own funds except for those things in the National Interest presented openly as such so that the Nation could support them. Things that are purely local and serve no National Interest have no place in the Federal Budget or as 'off budget' items from the Federal Treasury.

The Jacksonian Party supports the Executive to take a stance that any item that does NOT show up for signature on the Desk of the President and signed off upon is NOT an official item for expenditure of Federal Funds and such funds shall be returned to the Treasury until such time as an official and public expenditure be put upon his desk. And the 'Black Budget' will suffer similar, save on the classified side. If it is not put out for perusal and reading and justification and appears no where in the budget, the actual project or program is NOT THERE. The Jacksonian Party supports this fully and that the States begin the hard process of actually getting in order those things that DO require National attention and funding and justify them.

In other areas The Jacksonian Party has encouraged States to take upon themselves those things that can help the Nation and the National dialogue so as to make a more perfect Union. On National Security there has been a call for more self-governance. Further, the plain necessity for more Representatives in the House has been an ongoing call so that the American People can have their diversity heard in the halls of power. Also there has been a call to re-examine the right of States to be protected by their lawfully armed Citizenry and thus bring about a change in the way problems of armed conflict may be addressed not only within each State but to the Union as a whole and seek redress of such things. And the founder and author of this article has looked at how States can approach Citizenship and alter the ground upon which there is much vitriolic opining and remove that ground from under them.

The Jacksonian Party cherishes the Constitution in all of its parts and in all of its outlook and adheres strictly to them. It is a fine system for making government, but requires that each level of the Compact be serious about wanting such. And the finality for all such accountability rests with We the People, as it is Our Government to have.

And Our Nation to lose if we are not serious about it.