Monday, February 27, 2017

For All Who Are Clamoring for Constitutional Convention, Forewarned is Forearmed

As George Washington cautioned in his Farewell Address, "to resist the spirit of innovation upon the principles of the Constitution, however specious the pretexts"[1]...OM

Obama blamed Founding Fathers’ ‘structural’ design of Congress for gridlock

"The States in their House (Senate) would be a check on sudden and ill-considered action by the House of the People (House of Representatives).[1]...OM"

President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate. (For a so called, Constitutional scholar how little does BH0 know about the history of the Constitution he swore to "...preserve, protect and defend..." The Senate was originally designed to be a House of the States and "...shall be composed of two Senators from each state, CHOSEN by the Legislature there of...Art 1, Sec 3 emasculated by the 17th Amendment[1]...OM)

At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population. (The House of Representatives is the HOUSE of the PEOPLE, elected by the PEOPLE as defined in Art 1, Sec 2 of Constitution and the House of Representatives is the people's check on the POTUS. The Senate was suppose to be the STATES check on the POTUS as explained in Federalist 62, "It is recommended by the double advantage favoring a SELECT appointment, and of giving to the STATE GOVERNMENT such an agency in the formation of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as a must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems"...OM)

“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said. (That is exactly why the Founding Fathers set up Congress consisting of a HOUSE and SENATE because as much as the Socialist stress that America is a DEMOCRACY it isn't, AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC...OM)

The Founding Fathers decided in the “Great Compromise” in 1787 to apportion House seats based on population and give each state two seats in the Senate regardless of population. The solution was a compromise between large states and small states in a dispute that nearly dissolved the Constitutional Convention.

The president also blamed “demographics” for the inability of the Democratic Party to gain more power in Congress, saying Democrats “tend to congregate a little more densely” in cities such as New York and Chicago (Isn't that where most of the welfare handouts go?...OM). He said it gives Republicans disproportional clout in Congress.(Because most who believe in original meaning of the Constitution and hard work usually live outside the Democratic controlled urban areas...OM)

“So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through,” Mr. Obama said. (Is that why the House turned over in 2010 and MAYBE there will be a turn of the Senate in 2014?...OM)

He also said Democrats suffer from the “congenital disease” of not voting in midterm elections.

Let's turn once more to the Federalist:

"The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and
numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to
be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the  United States, as well as from the history of other nations."

Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#ixzz32c1xNmwe 

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining The Constitution, A History of a Lawless Government, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1950. (Thomas Norton was a member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.)

Monday, January 16, 2017

Martin Luther King: One of the Most Influential Progressive of the Twentieth Century

From the Nation's "The Fifty Most Influential Progressives of the Twentieth Century"


King helped change America’s conscience, not only about civil rights but also about economic justice, poverty and war. As an inexperienced young pastor in Montgomery, Alabama, King was reluctantly thrust into the leadership of the bus boycott. During the 382-day boycott, King was arrested and abused and his home was bombed, but he emerged as a national figure and honed his leadership skills. In 1957 he helped launch the SCLC to spread the civil rights crusade to other cities. He helped lead local campaigns in Selma, Birmingham and other cities, and soughtto keep the fractious civil rights movement together, including the NAACP, Urban League, SNCC, CORE and SCLC. Between 1957 and 1968 King traveled more than 6 million miles, spoke more than 2,500 times and was arrested at least twenty times while preaching the gospel of nonviolence. Today we view King as something of a saint; his birthday is a national holiday and his name adorns schools and street signs. But in his day the establishment considered King a dangerous troublemaker. He was harassed by the FBI and vilified in the media. The struggle for
civil rights radicalized him into a fighter for economic and social justice. During the 1960s King became increasingly committed to building bridges between the civil rights and labor movements. He was in Memphis in 1968 to support striking sanitation workers when he was assassinated. In 1964, at 35, King was the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Some civil rights activists worried that his opposition to the Vietnam War, announced in 1967, would create a backlash against civil rights, but instead it helped turned the tide of public opinion against the war.

Martin Luther King, An American Communist?

Martin Luther King; Belief in Birth Control? 

Martin Luther King, Jr. - Don't Shoot the Messenger


Note: When I first wrote and posted this, I, unlike a lot of Americans, continued to read and research, as of now I have concluded that Martin Luther King was what I must now call an American Communist.

Introduction

I remember back when a co-worker and eventually a very good friend of mine said to me, “Have you seen or heard Glenn Beck (Glenn)?”

I looked at him and said, “No, who is he?”

He went on to explain that he was a conservative talk show host on CNN. So like any person approaching something new, I opened my mind and tuned in. I liked what I saw and became hooked. I felt that maybe I had found someone who would entertain, yet educate and unlike most sheeple in America, I'm always willing to listen to another opinion and I'm definitely open to learning.

I followed Glenn from CNN to Fox and even though the 5:00 time slot overlapped with my work schedule, I did what anyone with a DVR would do, I recorded his show. In fact I ended up burning some of the shows to DVD for future reference.

When he started the 9-12 Project, I was lucky enough to find one of the first websites that “welcomed” me and my rants. In fact, I was privileged to have Glenn read one of my comments on air. However, I ended up leaving that site when the Site Administrator violated my trust, as I would become accustomed to with other 9-12 sites and Glenn Beck himself. I would later join another site that, though some were Glenn Beck fans, they thought for themselves.

When Glenn left Fox, I was very disappointed to say the least. I thought at least I could still listen to him on the radio. Yes, I still listen to him today. However as I've continued to listen to Glenn, I began seeing that Glenn's message began to change and he began to develop a rather selective view of history, particularly when it comes to his almost worship of Martin Luther King (MLK).

Martin Luther King Jr.: Communist, Socialist or Progressive

When Glenn began his admiration, bordering on idol worship, of MLK's non-violent approach to the race problems in the sixties, I started wondering exactly where was he heading with this admiration? Was he doing what a majority of people do who put a person on a pedestal, ignoring the real history of the person or just taking a selective view?

As Igor, my friend and editor, is fond of saying when I challenge things at work, “You're opening a can of worms.”

Yes, I may be doing just that and most likely I will unleash a Hell storm of criticism, name calling and most likely down right hate. This is NOT my intention; I will present the facts and allow you the reader to look at the facts presented and make up your own mind.

Once again, I ask, “Don't shoot the messenger.”

Let's begin by setting the rules. To begin with, as most of my readers know I will be using sources, direct quotes. The second rule is I am going to ask the devoted fans and followers of Glenn to think back and remember. BUT most importantly keep an open mind and remember when Glenn said,

You've got to demand the truth from yourself.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Communist?

This is the not the only place where I feel Glenn is completely off base. But, for the purpose of this post it is the only one I'm going to deal with.

Do Glenn Beck fans remember him saying, and I paraphrase,

Progressives are Communists with patience

From this statement, one can and should conclude that Progressives are Communists and that would mean that Theodore Roosevelt (October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919) who was one of the founders of the Progressive Party was a Communist, though at the time, just as today, the terms were interchangeable. Though Roosevelt did believe in "Social Justice". [1]

There are some who will say that the differences between Communism, Socialism and Progressivism are just a case of semantics, but there are differences and the problem or question that arises is, what are the differences?

I could spend a great deal of time and the rest of this piece going into the differences in the ideology and methods of Communism, Socialism and Progressivism but I won't; instead I will just give a brief history. Spoiler alert: Watch this space for a more in depth study in the differences.

Lets just say look at the history of Socialism.

After the Revolutions of 1848, the Socialist ideology split into three distinct factions.

The “Revisionist” socialists were those who promoted gradual reform by using compromise, the democratic process and non violence to achieve the nationalism of state and local public works.

The “Anarchic” socialists who believed that both the state and private property should be abolished and society should be composed of small collectives of producers, distributors and consumers.

Last comes the “Bolshevik” socialists, who believed in using revolutionary (violent) tactics to raise the conscious of the working class (proletariat) in order to advance socialism through an absolute dictatorship. It is what would eventually spur Lenin to lead the Bolshevik Revolution (Russian Revolution) of 1917 that would morph into what today people call communism. When most people speak of Communism today, they speak of a country ruled by a dictator whose power was achieved in most cases by violence and asserts complete control over production.

Now, since MLK did not believe in a violent approach to achieve social change, one can and should conclude that MLK was not a communist as defined by the Bolshevik philosophy. However he did have militant elements within his organization but as he said:

Our militant elements were used, not as small striking detachments, but to organize.” [2]

The idea of violent tactics to achieve Marxism is not the only separator between communism and socialism, but according to the early American socialists there are other differences.

According to W. D. P. Bliss,

Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common. Communism makes less of existing political institutions as instruments; Socialism would very largely use them."

Or as Victor L. Berger wrote,

The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.”[3]

While,

Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption. Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals”[4]

So using these two statements from the principle founders of the American Socialist Party in 1901, one should conclude that there is a difference between Socialism and Communism.

Did MLK believe that the government should control production, distribution and even consumption? If he didn't once again, he's not a Communist.

Socialism or Progressivism? Or are they the same thing?

Now this is where people really have to stop, think, and look at the facts and answer some very difficult questions and draw their own conclusions.

The first and most important question is:

“If there is no difference between the doctrines of the American Socialist Party and those who claim to be Progressives and the doctrines of the American Progressive Party, does that mean that they are the same only with different names?”

Next ask the question:

“If celebrated Progressives were also members of Socialist Party of America or Socialists, again does that mean that Progressives are Socialists?”

Remember when Glenn said on On May, 2014,

Progressives have a longer time table

Well, so do the Revisionist Socialists.

Martin Luther King, Jr. a Progressive

SOCIAL JUSTICE

According to the Center for American Progress, The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America,

In terms of its political values, progressivism throughout the years stressed a range of ideals that remain important today:... Social justice, the proper arrangement of law, society, and the economy to ensure that all people have the formal and informal capacity to shape their own lives and realize their dreams.

Does everyone remember when Glenn said,

I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.

Or how about when he said,

If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.”

Now, I must ask, if Glenn believes that “Social Justice” is such a code word and his followers should run away or report the priest to the bishop, then why does Glenn embrace MLK, a minister, who said in a 1963 speech at Western Michigan University, entitled "Social Justice",

I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice.” (My emphases...OM)

Why would Glenn fail to mention that according to The Nation magazine, Martin Luther King, Jr was named one of “The Fifty Most Influential Progressives of the Twentieth Century” where the author says,

...not only about civil rights but also about economic justice” (My emphases...OM)

and

The struggle for civil rights radicalized him into a fighter for economic and social justice.” (My emphases...OM)

Why would Glenn praise a person for his nonviolent approach to civil rights and yet fail to mention that when Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced MLK was going to be named along with three others to receive the first PPFA Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 [3] it said,

...for his courageous resistance to bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity.” (My emphases...OM).

Population Control

Once again, flashing back to Glenn's programs on Fox, his viewers were introduced to Margaret Sanger, Eugenics (particularly against Blacks) and her founding of Planned Parenthood of America, the world's leading abortion factory, under the guise of “women's health”. Isn't abortion the ultimate violence, considering that an unborn CHILD has no way to defend his/her self?

As previously mentioned, why does Glenn neglect to mention or educate his viewers that MLK was among the first recipients of the first Planned Parenthood for America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award in 1966? Where, in his acceptance speech MLK wrote, and which his wife presented said,

Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.” (My emphases...OM)

Or,

There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources [Isn't this straight out of Agenda 21?...OM], is possible, practical and necessary.” (My emphases...OM)

MLK and the Communist Belief in Government Supplied Jobs

Glenn has constantly ranted and raved that WE, the People, need to demand and work for a smaller federal government, government that stays out of American's lives.

If Glenn truly believes this, then once again, one must ask why Glenn had not completely done his homework OR if he did, just why did he chose to ignore that MLK also believed in one of the ultimate government controls; that the federal government should supply jobs,

We must develop a federal program of public works, retraining, and jobs for all—so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened. At the present time, thousands of jobs a week are disappearing in the wake of automation and other production efficiency techniques. Black and white, we will all be harmed unless something grand and imaginative is done. The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together, they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all.”[5]

Now, is this not the same socialist belief that was outlined in the Socialist Party Platform of 1908:

The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by building schools, by reforesting of cutover[sic] and waste lands, by reclamation of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be employed directly by the government under an eighthour work-day and at the prevailing union wages.

Conclusion

Some who will read this, may feel that this is a hit piece on Glenn Beck and Martin Luther King, Jr., it is not my intention. But since Glenn is ever so fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson,

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

Well, I am boldly questioning and asking why Glenn is not telling the FULL story and presenting all the facts concerning MLK? I will leave it up to you to make up your own mind and answer that question.

I will also ask, “Can a person believe in just a few items from an agenda and not believe in that agenda? Or can one just pick and chose, ignoring the facts." I feel it is like being a little bit pregnant.


You decide.

A special thanks to Igor and The Riceman for their editing and advice in the preparation of this piece.

References not linked

[1] Foster, William Z., History of the Communist Party of the United States, International Publishers, New York, New York, 1952. [William Z. "Bill" Foster (February 25, 1881 – September 1, 1961) was a radical American labor organizer and Marxist politician, whose career included a lengthy stint as General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. He passed through the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, as well as leading the drive to organize the packinghouse industry during World War I and the steel strike of 1919.]

[2] King, Jr., Martin Luther, "Let Justice Roll Down", The Nation, March 15, 1965.

[3] Berger, Victor L., "American Socialism", Social Democratic Herald, No. 1, July 9, 1898, pp. 3-4. [Victor Berger (1860 - 1929) In 1901 Berger joined with Eugene Debs and Morris Hillquit to establish the American Socialist Party. The party was very strong in Milwaukee and played a major role in the city's government for the next fifty years. In 1910 Berger became the first socialist in the United States to be elected to Congress. The following year he proposed a bill to provide old age pensions. Berger was a strong opponent of America's involvement in the First World War, describing it as a "the wholesale murder in Europe". However, as Shane Hamilton has pointed out: "the main thrust of Berger's anti-war stance was socialistic, not pacifistic."
In 1918 Berger was charged under the Espionage Act and after being found guilty was sentenced to twenty years in prison. While free on appeal, Berger was elected to Congress in 1919 with an increased majority. In 1921 the Supreme Court overturned Berger's conviction.
As well as representing the people of Milwaukee in Congress, Berger edited the Milwaukee Leader (1911-1921) and served as chairman of the American Socialist Party (1927-1929). He was a strong opponent of the American Communist Party and warned against the "folly of imitating Soviet models, condemning the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat." A collection of his speeches and editorials, Voice and Pen, was published in 1929.]

[4] Ibid

[5] Alex Haley’s interview with the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.in Playboy, January 1965.