The Wizard of Odds

“We are not in Kansas anymore,” said Dorothy.

“Oh,” said the Scarecrow.

“But we are,” said the Cowardly Lion.

“No,” barked Toto, “this is Tombstone Territory.”

The Tin Man just wanted to avoid rust. 

Because they care so deeply about “original intent,” self-styled “conservatives” or “strict

constructionists” may want to weigh the words of one who attended the Federal Convention.

“It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to

 be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments.  It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 48, James Madison) 

When the Kansas High Court upheld the ruling of a lower tribunal, based on a provision of the State

Constitution requiring equitable education funding, the Governor and Legislature retaliated.  They took away its power to appoint the Chief Judges of the District Courts.  But that poses a problem because, according to Article III, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution, “The Supreme Court shall have general administrative authority over all courts of this State.” 

The battle with the political branches has become another showdown at the OK Corral.  This time the Clanton Gang is the Governor and the Legislature, and the classic Western line has been spoken.  “This town is not big enough for the both of us.” 

If the Kansas courts stand up for themselves like Wyatt Earp, his brothers, and Doc Holliday—and win—the fight is not over, because the Clantons intend to change how jurists are appointed and removed.  At present, to reduce the influence of politics, a commission compiles a list from which Supreme Court Justices are chosen; and they are subject to “impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  (Kansas Constitution, Article II, Section 28)  But the Governor has proposed partisan elections or appointments originated by him alone.  Meanwhile, the Legislature considers removal—by recall, with a third of the vote sufficient for dismissal, or by impeachment for “attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power,” “attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government,” and “failure to adequately supervise subordinate employees.”

A policy dispute is one thing, dismemberment is another—and the danger is not confined to Kansas.

If that seems extreme, consider what is at stake. 

“The judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the

 strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.  It may truly be

 said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the

 aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 78, Alexander Hamilton) 

If the past is prologue, then leaders must study history to avoid making the same or similar mistakes in the future.  But that experience has to be distilled before one can imbibe wisdom.  Here, the lesson learned by “the superintending government” should be instructive regarding the protection of the judiciary and give the States pause as the lens of history brings things into focus and their significance becomes apparent.  (The Federalist Papers, No. 48, James Madison)  Mom and dad are not abstractions, for perspectives change depending upon where one stands.  But principles endure; and problems occur if that does not hold, as happened when Senator Blount faced removal from office.

Jefferson wrote Madison sourly at the time, “I see nothing in the mode of proceeding by impeachment but the most formidable weapon for the purpose of dominant faction that was ever contrived.  It would be the most effectual one of getting rid of any man whom they consider dangerous to their views.”

     Once President, however, Jefferson, now enlightened by the executive perspective, himself turned to impeachment as a way of ridding the federal bench of judges whom he considered dangerous to his views.  (The Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 30; emphasis his)
  

He failed.

“Since impeachment had become a ‘farce’ he now favored a constitutional amendment empowering the President to remove federal judges on the joint address of both houses of Congress.  Removal by address—that is, by a majority vote of both houses without charges or trial—had been emphatically rejected in the Constitutional Convention.  It did not seem any better as an idea two decades later.”  (The Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 33)  For, in the early days, James Madison compared what the King, unlike the President, could do.  “All the members of the judiciary department…can be removed by him on the address of the two Houses of Parliament….”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 47) 

The situation in Kansas confirms Alexander Hamilton's observation and highlights his prophecy.

              This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences.  It proves 
              incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three
              departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two;
              and all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks.  It
              equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from
              the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from
              that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the
              Legislature and the Executive....  And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can
              have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear
              from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a
              union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding
              a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the
              judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by
              its co-ordinate branches; and as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and
              independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as
              an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel
              of the public justice and the public security.  (The Federalist Papers, No. 78; emphasis
              added)

Tenure, adequate support, and the method of removal provide a measure of protection at the Federal level.  “The Judges…shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”  (Article III, Section 1)  And Alexander Hamilton contrasted joint address with the better option.  “They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 79, emphasis added; see also Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 and Section 3, Clause 7 and Article II, Section 4) 

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission.  Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence.  If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or Legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.  (The Federalist Papers, No. 78, Alexander Hamilton) 

A whirlwind has touched down in Kansas.  And although they may be out of touch, the actors have not been removed from reality, no matter how much some wish to escape.  Hear and take heed, Wizard and Wicked Witch of the West and Winged Monkeys. 

In a time of instant gratification—me, me, me, me, me—when that is not a singer clearing his throat, duty is an old fashion or even a dirty word.  But that is what the supreme law of the land requires.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State

Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several

States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution….”  (Article VI, Clause 3)

So all of us who have taken the oath must recognize and respect a government consisting of three

co-ordinate and co-equal branches; and, at minimum, the public should expect and demand nothing

less from the Chief Magistrate and the Legislature of Kansas.  But, if they fail to meet their responsibilities, there is an alternative to clicking our heels three times. 

The old adage—Where there is a right, there is a remedy—can be applied to an individual and a State.  William Blackstone and Chief Justice Marshall addressed the former; James Madison the latter. 

In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations.  The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be substantially maintained.  But a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution?  Governments of dissimilar principles and forms have been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort, than those of a kindred nature.  (The Federalist Papers, No. 43; emphasis his) 

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...."

Article IV, Section 4 is clarified with a brief remark by Madison.  “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place….”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 10)  And then he goes into more detail.

          ...(W)e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which

          derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and is

          administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during

          good behavior.  It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of

          the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or favored class of it; otherwise a handful  

          of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire
          to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.  It is

          SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either

          directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the

          tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other

          popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be

          degraded from the republican character.  (The Federalist Papers, No. 39; CAPITAL emphasis

          Madison's; italics added) 

Article IV, Section 4 refers to powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution and, therefore, objections based on the Tenth Amendment are but a pretense.  Thus, an appeal to States’ rights will not suffice. 

…(T)here ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions.  What, for instance, would avail restrictions on the authority of the State Legislatures, without some constitutional mode of enforcing the observance of them?  The States…are prohibited from doing a variety of things, some of which incompatible with the interests of the Union, and others with the principles of good government….  No man of sense will believe, that such prohibitions would be scrupulously regarded, without some effectual power in the government to restrain or correct the infractions of them.  This power must either be a direct negative on the State laws, or an authority in the federal courts to overrule such as might be in manifest contravention of the articles of Union….  The latter appears to have been thought by the Convention preferable to the former….  (The Federalist Papers, No. 80, Alexander Hamilton) 

Checks and balances are the heart and blood of the system.  "...(T)he political apothegm... does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other.  ...(U)nless these departments be so far connected and as blended to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 48, James Madison)  But a threat to slash the veins of an organ vital to existence is not an exercise of constitutional control.  For an ultimatum is intimidation by stopwatch. 

Of course, self-styled “conservatives” or “strict constructionists” would challenge such bullying by

recalling another attendee at the Federal Convention who remarked that “If there are such things as

political axioms, the propriety of the judicial power of a government being coextensive with its

legislative, may be ranked among the number.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 80)  For of all people, self-styled “conservatives” or “strict constructionists” must acknowledge that a line has been crossed in Kansas, and the aggression must be reversed and the border restored. 

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.   By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like.  Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.  Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.  (The Federalist Papers, No. 78, Alexander Hamilton; emphasis added) 

An unavoidable problem remains.  “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm” nor behind the curtain, and they must be exposed.  (The Federalist Papers, No. 10, James Madison)  For a mere assertion does not become true through endless repetition, and, like the Wicked Witch, theirs is “melting, melting.”  Yet it is not too late for the Governor of Kansas to hear the words of James Madison.  “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 10)  

(c)Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/final-front-sam-brownbacks-battle-control-Kansas

https://youtu.be/1pw9-cz9uMs

Goodell's Last Stand

Way back in November, the Colts made a complaint to the league about New England's footballs.  In January, after losing the divisional playoff to the Patriots, the Ravens tipped off Indianapolis about the same thing.  But then a week later, at halftime in the AFC Championship Game, the Colts were down 17-7.  And when the referees switched to their balls in the second half, the Colts went up--in flames--28-0.


Before the fire was out, the rout was forgotten, and the Patriots were in trouble and severely punished for arson without air.  Now the league of extraordinary gentlemen has turned a Saturday Night Live skit into a Federal case.  They are obsessed with the law.  But he who laughs last laughs best.  And that may not be the NFL.


In the commentaries on the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton consistently refers to "the courts of justice" whose power extends "to all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States."  (The Federalist Papers, No. 78 regarding Article III, Section 2, Clause 1; emphasis his)


"What equitable causes can grow out of the Constitution and laws of the United States?  There is hardly a subject of litigation between individuals, which may not involve those ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship, which would render the matter an object of equitable rather than of legal jurisdiction....  It is the peculiar province, for instance, of a court of equity to relieve against what are called hard bargains: these are contracts in which, though there may have been no direct fraud or deceit, sufficient to invalidate them in a court of law, yet there may have been some undue and unconscionable advantage taken of the necessities or misfortunes of one of the parties, which a court of equity would not tolerate."  (The Federalist Papers, No. 80; emphasis his)


Thus, the American judiciary exists to "establish justice," which depends upon truth.  And if Judge Berman falls asleep reading The Federalist Papers, the Commissioner should be alarmed.  For even if one accepts the Wells Report as gospel, the NFL allowed a violation of the rules to occur.  The Patriots then paid a $1 million fine, lost a first and a fourth round draft pick, and their quarterback faces a four game suspension.  But Brady was not in the bathroom wearing a Mission Impossible mask.  So, indeed, there may have been some undue and unconscionable advantage taken of one of the parties; and at best, given the benefit of the doubt, the NFL is technically right but totally wrong.


(c) 2015 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

Forty-seven Shades of Nay

Fantasy is fine—in its time and place.  But one's private life ends with public displays.  Consenting adults who become exhibitionists cannot expect to escape notice.

I

Executive agreements are an important part of American diplomacy.  They are made pursuant to a treaty, a joint resolution, or an Act of Congress.  But sole executive agreements depend upon the power of the President alone, such as recognition, a ceasefire, or a settlement of foreign claims.  Famous examples include TR's Gentlemen's Agreement, an accommodation with Japan on immigration that modified the Treaty of 1890, an action taken long before the Exclusion Act;* FDR's Destroyers for Bases Agreement that preceded the Lend-Lease Act; Truman acknowledging the existence of Israel, which answered the question posed by the Ancient of Days: "Son of man, can these bones live?"; and JFK's moratorium on setting off H-bombs, a first step which led to a shaft of light that cut into the darkness.

II

Has the saying for the GOP become "Politics starts at the water's edge"?

The Speaker's invitation was accepted by the Prime Minister.  The man who, in previous remarks to a congressional committee, had predicted that an invasion of Iraq would check the power of Iran, was to address a joint session.  He stood in opposition to "a bad deal" before the announcement of a framework.

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran provided clarification.^  And even though scholars shall study this profound message for as long as there is sand in the hourglass, a cursory examination will have to masquerade as an equal.

"It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system."

The author and co-signers may want to look in the mirror.

"...Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."

The term is commonly misused, but those giving lessons should be aware of definitions.  Ratification is an executive act, the granting of final approval.

"A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate."

The Interim Agreement on Offensive Missile Systems was akin to a ceasefire.  President Nixon asked for "concurrence" by a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, which was never in doubt.  But Mr. Cotton confuses courtesy—or comity—with a requirement.  Nixon could have acted on his own authority, as had JFK; and in both cases, negotiations continued and a treaty was concluded.

A so-called congressional-executive agreement is the result of interaction between the branches, but the tablets are not written in stone as the imitation Moses would have us believe.  In contrast to Smoot-Hawley, which was only concerned with collecting tariffs, and which proved disastrous, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 delegated authority to adjust them and combined that with the President's power to conduct negotiations.  For even though the Legislature has power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," the Executive is involved with implementation.  (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)  Now, in the most recent revision of the process, a proposed free trade agreement is submitted for a vote under "fast track," which is another name for a closed rule, that is, neither House can offer amendments; and the finger of God is also inactive.  Thus, Mr. Cotton is mistaken about the issue at hand.  The specific arrangement mentioned in his letter rests on the foreign commerce clause, which is irrelevant to the situation with Iran.

"Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement."

A mere executive agreement would include TR's subtle use of justice to influence and maintain           the balance of power in the Far East; FDR throwing a life vest to Britain; Truman extending a greeting to a tiny nation in the Levant; and JFK calling "a truce to terror" with the Soviet Union.  As John Jay, a diplomat and the first Chief Justice, noted, "All constitutional acts of power, whether in the Executive or in the judicial department, have as much legal validity and obligation as if they proceeded from the Legislature...."  (The Federalist Papers, No. 64)
  
"...(W)e will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next President could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

"These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.  ...(T)hey who make treaties may alter or cancel them; but still let us not forget that treaties are made, not by only one of the contracting parties, but by both; and consequently, that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to alter or cancel them."  (John Jay, The Federalist Papers, No. 64)

Furthermore, these gentlemen would do well to reflect that the Supreme Court has recognized "the legal validity and obligation" of nothing more than an executive agreement.**  Then, in addition to the Framers and the Court, the gentleman from Arkansas and his associates may also want to weigh the words of a distinguished historian.

"The revulsion against executive agreements drew emotional support from a couple of          misconceptions: that most executive agreements were made on the claim of independent           presidential authority; and that the executive agreement had become a primary means of            American military and thus political commitment abroad.  In fact, most executive agreements—97 percent, according to the State Department—were made pursuant to treaties approved by the Senate or statutes passed, before or after the fact, by Congress as a whole."  (The Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 312)

There is nothing unusual about the current negotiations.  They are a continuation of efforts to expand international law via the United Nations Charter, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Failure to do so would cast doubt on whether the President was serious about his duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," something men who brush up against the Logan Act may want to keep in mind.  (Article II, Section 3, Clause 5)

The importance of P5+1 goes beyond Iran; and in making every effort for peace, the United States continues to restore its moral authority.  Furthermore, action by the Security Council shall be justified, as will, if there is no other alternative, unilateral action by the United States.

III

Willful or studied ignorance and duplicity are not good cards.  Facts make a winning hand.  But those who fancy themselves Brett Maverick or Brady Hawkes keep sitting at the table, confident in the nonsense up their sleeves.

That's Embarrassment!  The storyline is a blend of soap opera and Ted Mack & The Original Amateur Hour.  Here, a Batman villain, the Riddler asks, "Which came first, the invitation or the RSVP?"  And there, the Wrestle Mania tag team of Cotton and McCain wear the New Scarlet Letter.  Meanwhile, Mr. Corker, who plays Marcel Marceau, gestures to suggest what already exists.

"There's no business like show business..."  The accusations are darts tossed by Willie the Wino.  He misses the target, and the critics miss the point.  Nevertheless, the reviews are scathing.  "In vaudeville, it was said, 'Kids and dogs are a tough act to follow.'"  

The Case Act of 1972 recognizes executive agreements and requires their transmission to Congress.  In honoring its spirit, the Administration gives regular briefings to Senators and Representatives.  So why pretend the letter of the law will not be followed, or suggest a new one is needed?^^  

"The show must go on" is not the nation's motto, although some in public life have not gotten the memo.  The opposition ignores the fact that the Secretary of State has been guided by a diplomatic version of the unit rule:  "Nothing is settled until everything is settled."  But the conduct of Cotton and McCain is particularly disturbing.  One expects more from men who have been "America's Ambassadors in green."  Yet those two, who question the President, show little inclination to reflection themselves.  Instead, they bring to mind a warning not "to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."  (John Jay, The Federalist Papers, No. 64)

IV

The Framers did not want "to relinquish the benefits of the constitutional agency of the President in the conduct of foreign negotiations," and all of today's tumult is a reminder as to why.

"It is true that the Senate would, in that case, have the option of employing him in this capacity, but they would also have the option of letting it alone, and pique or cabal might induce the latter rather than the former.  Besides this, the ministerial servant of the Senate could not be expected to enjoy the confidence and respect of foreign powers in the same degree with the constitutional representatives of the nation, and, of course, would not be able to act with an equal degree of weight or efficacy."  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 75)

Despite all the sound and fury on Capitol Hill, there are words that still matter.

"So often and so essentially have we heretofore suffered from the want of secrecy and despatch, that the Constitution would have been inexcusably defective, if no attention had been paid to those objects.  Those matters which in negotiations usually require the most secrecy and the most despatch, are those preparatory and auxiliary measures which are not otherwise important in a national view, than as they tend to facilitate the attainment of the objects of the negotiation.  For these, the President will find no difficulty to provide...."  (John Jay, The Federalist Papers, No. 64; emphasis added)

©2015 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.


*Imagine—a President acting on immigration on his own authority.  Maybe those who take the oath should read the fine print.

^http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/09/text-of-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders-on-nuclear-talks/

The legal article below, unintentionally, verifies the comment made on the misuse of the word ratification.

**http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/25-domestic-obligations-of-executive-agreements.html

Jay's remarks regarding a treaty also apply to an executive agreement, as shown by the Court's rulings in B. Altman & Co. v. United States (1912), United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), United States v. Belmont (1937), and United States v. Pink (1942).
                                         
^^http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/opinion/a-reckless-act-in-the-senate-on-iran.html?_r=0

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32632318

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/14/house-overwhelmingly-passes-iran-nuclear-review

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/05/22/us/politics/ap-us-obama-iran.html

The President signed the Iran Nuclear Review bill—without ceremony at the White House.  For the Hokey Pokey Act of 2015 has all the significance of its namesake.  After  "you shake it all about…and you turn yourself around…" you are standing where you started.  "That’s what it's all about."

Mano a Mano--Football and Fencing

              The hills are alive

              With the sight of pitchforks

              And torches too

              In thousands of hands

His effigy is in flames, and the fugitives from Shirley Jackson’s short story are gathering wood.  But thank God Brady has not been burned at the stake.

 

"Hut, hut."

The Colts versus the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game is like Sgt. Garcia versus Zorro. 

"On guard."

 

Garcia, who has a Z carved on the front of his field jacket, complains.

"Zorro uses a lighter blade.  If not for that, I would have won."

The next time they meet, Zorro uses a lead pipe with a sharp point and carves so Z's on Garcia that he stands naked with his clothing down around his ankles.  But the good sergeant is not undone.

"Well...well...who brings a pipe to a sword fight?  That is against the rules."

The rules--the Wells Retort.  Garcia is technically right but totally wrong.  The rules are not in question.  This is about gamesmanship.  And he was outplayed and shown to be a crybaby.  But, of course, no one mentions the fact that initially the referees did not take his complaint seriously, nor that they inspected the weapons before the match, and each time before "On guard."

Now Zorro is furious.  He sends Sgt. Garcia a note.

"Playtime is over.  Get your affairs in order."

 

Thus, the Ravens inability to recognize tackle eligible,* and the Colts inability to come up with a game plan and play with desire, inspired a diversion.  And so, the conversation is not about their bad coaching.  If only they had executed such misdirection on the field, because the Patriots fell for it.

             High in the box was the lonely Goodell

             Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

             Loud was the voice of the lonely Goodell

             Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

Brady's response was the right one upon hearing about ball pressure the next day.  He laughed.  After all, there is nothing like being lectured on virtue by a team that slinked away in the dead of night when they had an appointment with the Mayor of Baltimore the following day.  Yet those are the guys passing out WANTED posters of No. 12 to bounty hunters with the word ALIVE scratched out. 

(c) 2015 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.


*http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-nfl-says-patriots-formations-reporting-was-legal-in-ravens-playoff-loss-20150111-story.html


https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/25/nfl-passes-rule-change-aimed-patriots-ineligible-receiver-tactic/uBqPWS5dKYdMYMcIiJ3sKO/story.html

Much Is Required

"The only theory absent from the current debate over the Second Amendment," according to Professor Saul Cornell, "is the original civic interpretation."*

The National Rifle Association's propaganda has been effective. Gun control is the NRA's Boogey Man. The phrase elicits cries of tyranny, fears of confiscation, and threats of armed resistance. Nevertheless, despite all the sound and fury, their position is ahistorical.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Or so the NRA tells us. But that is a partial quotation, lacking proper punctuation. For, actually, the Second Amendment reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Thus, even before consulting history, the NRA's position is exposed and overrun by a cursory examination of sentence structure. Without the appositives, the Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia...shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment does not authorize every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have firearms. For the Framers were not fools. A distinction was made between the common defense and the common law right of self-defense. (Cornell 15-16)

Beyond grammar, there is context. The Second Amendment does not stand alone. It cannot be understood without reference to Article I and Article II of the Constitution. Neither of which the NRA ever invokes.

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....," Alexander Hamilton observed in background remarks on the arrangement made by the Federal Convention. (The Federalist Papers, No. 29)  Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Clause 16 of the same section gives the Legislative Branch power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 makes the President Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, "and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States." Such are the functions of those parts of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

The former artillery officer and aide de camp to the Commander in Chief of the Continental Forces gave credit where credit was due. But Hamilton also noted the need for improvement. And he explained why.

The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice. (The Federalist Papers, No. 25)

How was that science to be acquired and perfected? Hamilton presented a preliminary proposal.

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.... Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year....

"The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." (The Federalist Papers, No. 29)

The comprehensive recommendation, which the Washington Administration submitted to Congress, was prepared by Secretary of War Henry Knox. And while national defense was carefully considered, that vital task was not viewed in isolation. For, more than a table of organization or order of battle, the Knox Plan** serves as a reminder that citizenship involves rights and duties.

The Introduction



An energetic National Militia is to be regarded as the CAPITAL SECURITY of a free republic; and not a standing army, forming a distinct class in the community.

It is the introduction and diffusion of vice and corruption of manners into the mass of the people, that renders a standing army necessary. It is when public spirit is despised, and avarice, indolence and effeminacy of manners predominate, and prevent the establishment of institutions which would elevate the minds of the youth in the paths of virtue and honor, that a standing army is formed and rivetted forever....

If the United States possess the vigor of mind to establish the first institution, it may reasonably be expected to produce the most unequivocal advantages. A glorious national spirit will be introduced, with its extensive train of political consequences. The youth will imbibe a love of their country; reverence and obedience to its laws; courage and elevation of mind; openness and liberality of character; accompanied by a just spirit of honor. In addition to which their bodies will acquire a robustness, greatly conducive to their personal happiness, as well as the defense of their country. While habit, with its silent, but efficacious operations, will durably cement the system....

But the second principle, a militia of substitutes, is pregnant, in a degree, with the mischiefs of a standing army; as it is highly probable the substitutes from time to time, will be nearly the same men, and the most idle and worthless part of the community. Wealthy families, proud of distinctions which riches may confer, will prevent their sons from serving in the militia of substitutes; the plan will degenerate in habitual contempt; a standing army will be introduced, and the liberties of the people subjected to all the contingencies of events.

The Plan



Although the substantial political maxim, which requires personal service of all the members of the community for the defense of the State, is obligatory under all forms of society, and is the main pillar of a free government, yet the degrees thereof may vary at the different periods of time, consistent with the general welfare. The public convenience may also dictate a relaxation of the general obligation as it respects the principal magistrates, and the ministers of justice and of religion, and perhaps some religious sects. But it ought to be remembered that measures of national importance never should be frustrated by the accommodation of individuals.... (Emphasis added.)

The advanced corps, and annual camps of discipline, are instituted in order to introduce an operative military spirit in the community. To establish a course of honorable military service, which will, at the same time, mould the minds of the young men to due obedience of the laws, instruct them in the art of war, and by the manly exercises of the field, form a race of hardy citizens, equal to the dignified task of defending the country.... (Emphasis added.)

 As soon as the service of the youth expires in the advanced corps, they are to be enrolled in the main corps. On this occasion, the republic receives disciplined and free citizens, who understand their public rights, and are prepared to defend them.

The main corps is instituted, to preserve and circulate throughout the community, the military discipline, acquired in the advanced corps; to arm the people, and fix firmly, by practice and habit, those forms and maxims, which are essential to the life and energy of a free government. (Emphasis added.)

The reserved corps is instituted to prevent men being sent to the field, whose strength is unequal to sustain the severities of an active campaign. But by organizing and rendering them eligible for domestic service, a greater proportion of the younger and robust part of the community, may be enabled in cases of necessity, to encounter the more urgent duties of war.... (Emphasis added.)

If wealth be admitted as a principle of exemption, the plan cannot be executed. It is the wisdom of political establishments to make the wealth of individuals subservient to the general good, and not to suffer it to corrupt or attain undue indulgence. (Emphasis added.)

It is conceded that people, solicitous to be exonerated from their proportion of public duty, may exclaim against the proposed arrangement as an intolerable hardship. But it ought to be strongly impressed that, while society has its charms, it also has its indispensable obligations. That, to attempt such a degree of refinement as to exonerate the members of the community from all personal service, is to render them incapable of the exercise, and unworthy of the characters of freemen.

Every State possesses, not only the right of personal service from its members, but the right to regulate the service on principles of equality for the general defense. All being bound, none can complain of injustice, on being obliged to perform his equal proportion. Therefore, it ought to be a permanent rule, that those who in youth decline or refuse to subject themselves to the course of military education, established by the laws, should be considered as unworthy of public trust or public honors, and be excluded therefrom accordingly. (Emphasis added.)

If the majesty of the laws should be preserved inviolate in this respect, the operations of the proposed plan would foster a glorious public spirit, infuse the principles of energy and stability into the body politic, and give an high degree of political splendor to the national character.

There are no easy answers, although there are some obvious tentative first steps.^ And they have been taken. But being on the right path means nothing unless we press on to the end.

Facts, those "stubborn things" of which John Adams spoke, are torches. And they can enlighten the American people.

The original vision of a well-regulated militia was premised on the notion that rights and obligations were inseparable. Arms bearing was a public activity, a way of nurturing and demonstrating one's capacity for virtue. The militia was viewed by the Founders as a vital political and social institution, part of a seamless web that knit the locality, the state, and the national government together into a cohesive political community. (Cornell, 214)

The NRA is fond of setting up straw men. So, why not challenge them with facts disguised as scarecrows? Take the fight to the gun lobby by taking away their fictional Second Amendment.

While the ideal of the Founders' militia functioned as a means of producing a common civic culture, modern gun rights ideology has largely worked to undermine this goal. Gun rights ideology has fostered an anticivic vision, not a vision of civicmindedness. In this ideology guns are primarily viewed as a means of repulsing government or other citizens, not a means for creating a common civic culture. (Cornell, 214)

Stand back and let their shills object. And then watch their lies fall like dominoes.

The Knox Plan stands as precedent for a Universal National Service Act, which would change the nature of the debate by a return to the origins of the Republic, a place where time exists in the quantum realm. Thus, when Alexander Hamilton foresaw "an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it," in a sense, he was going back to the future. For, as Senator Obama said, in July of 2008, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set." And notice how closely that complements Hamilton's thought on a "well-trained militia": "This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." (The Federalist Papers, No. 29) It is as if they are completing each other's sentences. For Senator Obama went on to say, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."^^

Universal National Service*^ offers advantages old and new--something borrowed, something blue--by using the same format as Secretary Knox. The age ranges of the Advanced Corps, the Main Corps, and the Reserved Corps would be 18-20, 21-45, and 46-60, respectively. The three tiers would be extended throughout the national security establishment--the Armed Forces, the Intelligence Community, and the Diplomatic Corps. But conscientious objectors could work in hospitals, education, or infrastructure. And, at long last, those who do tough guy schtick, who want to play the role, can finally be told, "You got the part, and now it is time to perform." Then the blowhards must be pushed hard, and they cannot be DOR.

Meanwhile, as Wayne LaPierre and his good buddies are wearing fatigues and old fashion black combat boots, running in sand, clapping hands and singing cadence called by a Special Forces drill sergeant--"I want to be an Airborne Ranger/I want to live a life of danger"--the Department of Justice can file suit against the faux militia. After all, they are no more entitled to call themselves a State Militia than a citizen can claim to be a Federal agent. Both constitute fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore the coy soldiers should change their group's name to Gun Club.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world," said Jonathan Swift, "while the truth is putting on its shoes." Well, the tortoise has laced up his sneakers. Yet, like the hare, Wayne LaPierre believes the race is in the bag because of an enormous lead. But what he has is a bandanna and a backpack full of NRA propaganda.

(c) 2013 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.


*Saul Cornell, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, 7. See also https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/news/faculty/node/454141.

**http://www.potowmack.org/washknox.html 

http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/repdoc.htm

^http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9786#more-9786

^^http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409184.html#2TWGS1rZclf7iOqf.99

*^ Additional reasons to consider Universal National Service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/an-all-volunteer-military-poses-challenges-for-us/2011/10/28/gIQAbuTOaM_story.html

http://m100group.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/the-unaffordability-of-the-all-volunteer-military-by-walter-pincus/

*^^This quote has long been attributed to Mark Twain, but it was made by Jonathan Swift.  And now, the correction has been made here.  (01-08-2023)











Washington

These remarks were delivered on February 20, 2003.

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts.

First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.

Commander in Chief of the Continental Forces. President of the Federal Convention. President of the United States.

I

His rank was general. His official title was Commander in Chief of the United Colonies. His assignment was straightforward, although the odds were overwhelming: Defeat the most powerful armed forces in the world.

The Continental Congress had created a Continental Army. But land forces were not enough. The General armed merchant ships. The privateers became known as Washington's Navy. Later, the Continental Congress provided funds for the Continental Navy, which was to sail under the command of Commodore Esek Hopkins. And from the beginning, the General desired joint operations.

The following year the principles at stake were set forth in one of the most eloquent statements of faith ever written:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

King George III was not impressed. The war continued.

For George Washington, Commander in Chief was more than a title. He was in the thick of the fight. Bullets whizzed by him, sometimes tearing his clothing. Horses were shot from under him. When his men fled, he chased after them, demanding their return and their best efforts.

Washington was truly Commander in Chief. But he was not a law unto himself. When he was uncertain of his authority, he contacted John Adams, the head of the Continental Board of War and Ordnance. "Your commission constitutes you commander of all the forces..., " Adams replied, "and you are vested with full power and authority to act as you shall think for the good and welfare of the service." Later, Washington wrote Adams, saying, "I am exceedingly desirous of consulting you." And that was constant. The Commander in Chief kept the Continental Congress informed.

His humility was a cloak. It was a complement to any outfit and more than an ordinary garment. As Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Ferguson, a Scottish officer in the Royal Army, explained:

We had not lain long when a rebel officer marked by a hussar dress, passed toward our army, within a hundred yards of my right flank, not perceiving us. He was followed by another dressed in dark green and blue, mounted on a bay horse, with a remarkably high cocked hat. I ordered three good shots to steal near to and fire at them; but the idea disgusting me, I recalled the order. The hussar, in returning, made a circuit, but the other officer passed within a hundred yards of us, upon which I advanced from the woods toward him. Upon my calling, he stopped; but after looking at me, he proceeded. I could have lodged half a dozen balls in or about him but it was not pleasant to fire at the back of an unoffending individual who was acquitting himself very coolly of his duty--so I let him alone.

The day after, rebel officers who were wounded told us that General Washington was all the morning with the light troops, and only attended by a French officer in hussar dress, he himself dressed and mounted in every point as above described. I am not sorry that I did not know at the time who it was.

As it is written, "When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." (Proverbs 16:7, KJV) Humility was a blessing.

If defeat and retreat were a song, the tune was one the patriots frequently played. The situation seemed hopeless. Then there were victories at Trenton and Princeton. Another followed at Saratoga, and France began to openly support the American cause.

With the defeat of the British at Yorktown, through joint operations, the last major battle had been fought. Negotiations appealed to the mother country. Two years later, the Treaty of Paris was signed. The United Colonies were free and independent states.

His mission accomplished, Washington gave his sword to the Continental Congress. He returned to Mount Vernon.

II

The Articles of Confederation were inadequate during the war. Things did not improve with peace. Alexander Hamilton, in support of something new, wrote, among other things, a series of newspaper articles entitled The Continentalist. James Madison also favored change, as did the former Commander in Chief. "Thirteen sovereignties," he noted, "pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole."

Finally delegates assembled in Philadelphia. Washington was unanimously elected President of the Federal Convention. He wanted a strong national government. But the obstacle remained. He was concerned. "The primary cause of all disorders lies in the different state governments and in the tenacity of that power which pervades the whole of their systems...." He was concerned--and with reason. "Weak at home and disregarded abroad is our present condition, and contemptible enough it is."

Whether seated at the raised dais or with the rest of the Virginia delegation, when the Convention went into the Committee of the Whole, Washington was quiet. Yet his influence was great. Delegates watched his face to see if he smiled or frowned in response to various proposals. "His presence," said Catherine Drinker Bowen, "kept the Federal Convention together, kept it going, just as his presence had kept a straggling, ill-conditioned army together throughout the terrible years of war."

After four months, the Convention's work was done. The result was sent to the conventions of the several States and was ratified. Washington was pleased:

Upon the whole, I doubt whether the opposition to the Constitution will not ultimately be productive of more good than evil; it has called forth, in its defence, abilities which would not perhaps have been otherwise exerted that have thrown new light upon the science of government, they have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible a manner, as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.

III

Mount Vernon was his first choice. And he was his country's.

"I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any point of my conduct that may not hereafter be drawn into precedent."

With his left hand on the Bible and his right raised, Washington took the oath as President of the United States. He added four words: "So help me God!"

In the fall, the President issued a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. He acted at the request of both Houses of Congress. But the President did not see himself as Defender of the Faith. "There is a God for...Washington....," says Jacob Needleman. "This God is not the God of any one church or sect or religion." And, in referring to the God of Truth, Needleman remarks on the significance: "When Truth becomes one's God it becomes more than the kind of alienated thinking that has characterized the modern ideal of reason. It becomes love as well."

When Europe was at war, President Washington considered the national interest. He issued a Proclamation of Neutrality. The United States stayed at peace.

The President was serious about his duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." At word of the Whiskey Rebellion, he mounted up and personally reviewed the troops commanded by Henry Lee, Light Horse Harry, a cavalry officer in the Revolutionary War. The farmers in four counties of western Pennsylvania would have to pay their taxes.

Washington could have been President until death. And he knew it. "I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public." Nevertheless, he stepped down, a successor was elected, and the two-term tradition was established.

He had answered his country's call. Now Mount Vernon beckoned.

IV

Character, according to the dictionary, means engraving or imprint. But it is more. Character is the union of thought, word, and deed directed toward a noble end.

His contemporaries compared him to Cincinnatus, the Roman citizen who was asked by the Senate's messengers to leave his fields and save the Republic when the enemy stood ready to end its life. He did so and then promptly returned to farming.

When the Federal Convention finished a day's work, Washington went back to the home of Robert Morris. Host and hostess appreciated their unassuming guest. More than once they were surprised to find him working on his papers or lost in thought. Morris was moved to describe Washington to a neighbor as "the only man in whose presence he felt any awe." And he was not alone.

Posterity remembered and respected its progenitor. Frederick Douglass decried the desecration of his memory. "Washington," he said, "could not die until he had broken the chains of his slaves." Perhaps Douglass recalled how, during the Revolutionary War, Washington recruited free blacks into the service, and urged the Continental Congress to approve and continue the practice. Five thousand would ultimately serve.

Some set the standard; others follow suit. Unlike any of his successors, Washington gave his prestige to the Presidency. "The historically unique combination of great power and great limitation that distinguishes the American Presidency," Jacob Needleman observes, "is almost entirely a mirror reflection of the character of Washington."

V

Among historians, there is an old debate: Do men make events, or do events make men? In The Federalist Papers, John Jay offers insight:

They who have turned their attention to the affairs of men must have perceived that there are tides in them; tides very irregular in their duration, strength, and direction, and seldom found to run twice exactly in the same manner or measure. To discern and to profit by these tides in national affairs is the business of those who preside over them; and they who have had much experience on this head inform us that there frequently are occasions when days, nay, even when hours, are precious. The loss of a battle, the death of a prince, the removal of a minister, or other circumstances intervening to change the present posture and aspect of affairs may turn the most favorable tide into a course opposite to our wishes. As in the field, so in the cabinet, there are moments to be seized as they pass, and they who preside in either should be left in capacity to improve them.

America was the stage; the globe the theater. And all the men and women merely players. They had their exits and their entrances. And one man in his time played many parts.

Commander in Chief of the United Colonies. President of the Federal Convention. President of the United States.

When the bell tolled, Representative Henry Lee--Light Horse Harry--paid tribute to George Washington:

"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."

(c) 2003 Marvin D. Jones. All rights reserved.

Exit Polls, Part IV

THE GUN IS SMOKING--2004 OHIO PRECINCT-LEVEL EXIT POLL DATA SHOW VIRTUALLY IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF VOTE MISCOUNT

http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

VOTE MISCOUNTS OR EXIT POLL ERROR?

http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit-Poll-Analysis.pdf

PRESS RELEASE--THE GUN IS SMOKING

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb333209.htm

Victory

This piece originally appeared on Democrats.com on November 2, 2002.

A young man wanted to join an elite unit of the Special Forces. The commander had his doubts.

"Son, do you know our motto?"

"No, sir."

"Victory or Death."

"Victory or Death? Victory...or...Death. Victory or Death. I think I will go with the Victory."

An old man who had served his country for many years was asked to save the realm when his career seemed to be near an end. Shortly after the King made him Prime Minister, he said:

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us.... That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

The Alamo mentality is the ability to fight ferociously against overwhelming odds as the Grim Reaper leads the charge. It is a desire to spit in Death's face and to slit his throat.

The Alamo mentality is not limited to time and place. Instead, it is defined by a toughness of mind nourished by the spirit. Hemingway called it courage--grace under pressure. It is the certain knowledge that some things are more important than life, and it is the willingness to pay the price. For a life without freedom is existence, and nothing more.

There is one issue in this campaign which may be stated in different ways: Are we going to choose freedom or despotism? Will the United States remain a Republic, or will the nation become an Empire? Do we care to uphold the Constitution?

Do not be fooled. Despite all the blarney and bluster, the opposition is in a weak position. Fort Falsehood is ready to collapse.

The Texan thinks he is JOHN Arnold Schwarzenegger Bruce Willis Clint Eastwood Slyvester Stallone Tom Cruise WAYNE. We must disimbue him of that notion and disembowel him with the sword of truth.

Ann Richards said, "George Bush was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." Well, George W. Bush was born in the owner's box and thinks he hit a home run--and awaits induction into the Hall of Fame. Are delusions of grandeur a family trait?

Let there be no misunderstanding. In my neighborhood, George the Lesser would have been described in one word: Sissy. Why? Has he ever fought his own battles?

Unlike Little Georgie Four Strikes, Paul Wellstone was not one of those "cold and timid souls" whom TR dismissed. When Senator Wellstone was asked the question, he replied, "I think I will go with the Victory."

He was short, but he stood tall when he voted against the war resolution. He grew in stature as the big men shrivelled. That day, as on so many others, conscience and courage were on display in defense of the Constitution. While Wellstone lived, we saw a patriot act.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch. After Ruffles and Flourishes heralds the gentleman from Texas, he enters to the accompaniment of The Great Pretender. Why? He cannot stand Dissent. Yet our country's birth certificate notes Dissent as the father. How can a man who "darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge" stand being an American?

The Texan is wrong. This is the Great Republic, not the Fourth Reich. Here, cowpoke, we sing The Star Spangled Banner, not H_ _ _land Uber Alles. By all means, take your ball and go home.

Thomas Jefferson taught us how to recognize and deal with tyrants:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The Texan heads a gang posing as a government. The corporate press aided and abetted his theft of the Florida election. Both the print and broadcast journalists of the self-styled mainstream press still tell tales and refer to him as the leader of the country, as if we need a good bedtime story before being lulled off to sleep. And too many so-called leaders of the Democratic Party are afraid to sound the alarm. How long must we endure these charades without the saving grace of Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant?

This is intellectual urban warfare. The fighting is house to house. Our objective is regime change. And we have them! The Pretender and the Vice Pretender are flayed alive with facts by our rhetorical Bowie knives.

Alas, we had fallen asleep only to reawaken on Elm Street. But the nightmare can end by answering a single question. And then let us say, "What the enemies of our Constitution have started, we will finish."

(c) 2002 Marvin D. Jones. All rights reserved.

Exit Polls, Part III

CARTER-BAKER EXIT POLL RECOMMENDATION WOULD HIDE EVIDENCE OF VOTE MISCOUNTS

http://uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=111&Itemid=41

The End of Excellence

Summertime and the living is easy.

When we were little kids, baseball season began as the school year ended. Sunrise said, "Play ball!" and sunset was the bottom of the ninth.

In the old days, American values were taught in fields, sandlots, and in the streets. Hard work, fair play, and consistency were admired--in an individual and in a team.
In the big leagues, they played 154 games, later increased to 162. Every team had its good days, bad days, and in between days. Humility was the lesson taught on the diamond, wherever it may have been, and was reinforced by a proverb not found in the Bible: "You are not as good as you look when you win, nor as bad as you look when you lose." In a straight league, at a time when that had nothing to do with sexual preference, the standard as to what made one the best was simple--first place or no place.

Gary loved baseball and the underdog. How could we help being friends? We would go to watch the Washington Senators play. We were disappointed the year Yaz and the Red Sox lost the World Series to the Cardinals. We were elated when the Miracle Mets beat the mighty Baltimore Orioles. It was back to disappointment when Carlton Fisk's Game 6 homer only turned out to mean the Red Sox would lose Game 7 to the Big Red Machine. But we were devastated the year Bill Buckner had fielding problems against the Mets.

     Sunrise, sunset
     Sunrise, sunset
     Swiftly go the days

Things change. The Senators were deputized as Texas Rangers. There was talk of a National League team for Washington. After careful consideration of all pertinent issues in tough negotiations, which used mediation and arbitration, it was decided that Gary would get season tickets for the Baltimore Orioles. As the party of one of the parts, Groucho said, the new Senators were my responsibility. But things change.

The failure to take a swing in labor-management relations resulted in a called strike. Thanks to the dispute, there was no World Series. When the dust settled, the owners had turned the double play. They got rid of Fay Vincent, and they changed the nature of the game.

The owners' concoction is like the witches' brew in Macbeth. Eye of newt goes well with three divisions per league, wild cards, and, as an added bonus--gratuitous interleague play.

Gary was concerned when Major League Baseball went to two divisions in each league and there was talk of playoffs. He was relieved to learn that what the sportscasters meant was there would be a League Championship Series in the senior and the junior circuit. He did not live to see what would come next. First place has become meaningless. First place is no place.

Thanks to the owners, the American pastime has passed its prime. The unique drama is over. The last pennant race occurred when Atlanta finished one game ahead of San Francisco. The Braves went to the National League Championship Series, and the Giants went home.

      Double, double; toil and trouble;
     Fire, burn; and cauldron bubble.

The bag men gave us a bag full of gimmicks. Beyond the luxury tax, there is the first place penalty or the performance tax. The team that does well during the regular season is subject to pay the price, because the extended exhibition is about maneuvering for position, which befits a nation of lawyers instead of ballplayers--the type of people who applauded and embraced when the United States Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes in Florida. Yes, a head to head matchup against a particular team matters more than how one does overall. "What difference does it make?"--they say--"Our guys won." Ladies and gentlemen, handicapped parking is one thing and a free postseason gift certificate is another. How long before computers replace umpires? Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S are ready to make the calls as they see them. They could also run the scoreboard.

All the former Commissioner wanted to do was to have strict geographical realignment of the Eastern and Western Divisions in each league. With his departure, an opportunity was lost to create distinctive play within them. Just imagine the Yankees and the Red Sox in the same division battling to the death every season. Instead, there is another Black Sox scandal.

TV money is the ultimate tail wagging a shaggy dog, and, because appearances matter more than substance, the game has been debased. Major League Baseball should be called Mislabelled Businessball.

In the depths of the Great Depression, FDR spoke of "the forgotten man"; and MDJ, in the depths of his depression, feels like the forgotten fan. Where have you gone, Dinah Washington? Baseball left me. Oh, what am I to do?

From sunrise to mourning, from line drives to teary eyes.

     But now the days are short
     I'm in the autumn of the year
     And now I think of my life as vintage wine
     From fine old kegs
     From the brim to the dregs
     It poured sweet and clear
     It was a very good year

Once, the World Series showcased the hitting and fielding of Mantle, Mays, Jackson, and Robinson and featured the pitching of Ford, Larsen, Koufax, and Gibson. But the Fall Classic has become a garage sale. For sustenance, we have gone from breakfast at Tiffany's to burritos at Taco Bell. And, in the evening, do not give me tuna and tell me it is caviar.

The mystery of how teams from the American and National Leagues would do against each other because of the differing styles of play has been replaced by the wheel of fortune and wondering whether, as one colleague put it, "some team can luck up at the end." Now, with the Joker in the deck, a psychic Columbo is apropos.

Because the Bronx Bombers supposedly "collapsed" or "choked," some speak of the end of the Yankee mystique. But was it their shortcomings, or was it inevitable? And should the men in pinstripes be second guessing themselves, or should we?

The Yankees are an anachronism; they dared to be great. Every pennant, every World Series championship--all twenty-six of them, even when they won five in a row--was the result of their having finished in first place. They set the standard; they defined what it meant to be the best. For, as Howard Cosell said, "The real test of greatness is in the consistency of excellence." Yet anyone longing for the old ways and lamenting the end of excellence is "an elitist," "an old timer," or "a purist."

Will bizball return to the days of first place or no place? Yank on your hanky. It is not in the Cards.

(c) 2005 Marvin D. Jones. All rights reserved.

Mocking

This piece originally appeared on Rense.com on December 21, 2002. It is reposted as a reminder of the significance of what happened nearly five years ago and the consequences thereof, which should be apparent to all. (www.rense.com/general32/mocking.htm)

It was long ago and in private that everything had been decided. The time to take a stand and show himself a man had come and gone, washed away like a name in the sand as the waves splash in and out, or as the wind blows. But, of course, he could not act.

Two years ago, when his brother's and Katherine Harris's purge of the Florida voter rolls, primarily of blacks, was not enough, the Governor of Texas went to court to stop the count. Ultimately, he took what can, out of generosity, be called a case to the nation's highest tribunal.

On December 12, 2000, five Justices of the United States Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes, again primarily those of blacks, which would have shown George W. Bush to be a loser. Instead, he was the Pretender-select or, as Kevin Phillips prefers, His Fraudulency the Second. (www.prospect.org/print/V12/2/phillips-k.html)

On December 12, 2002, a new insult was added to an old injury. The Pretender rode into action and attempted to lance a Lott.

Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong. Recent remarks by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. He has apologized, and rightly so.

Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals. And the founding ideals of our nation and, in fact, the founding ideals of the political party I represent was, (sic) and remains today, the equal dignity and equal rights of every American.

Senator Lott, in what The New York Times called Apology No. 4, agreed. "...(H)is words were wrong and he is sorry," said a spokesman. "He repudiates segregation because it is immoral."
On Friday the thirteenth, as was appropriate, Senator Lott made Apology No. 5.

Segregation is a stain on our nation's soul. There is no other way to describe it. It represents one of the lowest moments in our nation's history. And we can never forget that. Not only have I seen the destruction by those immoral policies of the past, I have tried to and will continue to do everything in my power to insure that we never go back to that type of country again.

If true, Senator, a good place to start would be with a denunciation of the biggest impostor in American history. Do you dare?

In this new role of slaying dragons and saving damsels in distress, Saint George might want his squire to awaken him sooner. If not, many villages will be burned and many ladies ravished. A week is a terrible thing to waste.

When George Bush the Elder ran the Willie Horton ads, George the Younger did not say, "Dad, that is divisive." When President Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, his son did not say, "Dad, that is divisive, and Elliot Richardson is far more qualified." And when George W. Bush ran in the South Carolina primary, he did not say, "The Confederate flag is as offensive to blacks as the swastika is to Jews. It is a symbol of hate, not of heritage. And that is divisive." Oh no, no not George, he did it his way.

The Pretender denounced Lott for doing what he had done himself. The Senator simply does not know how to play Jim Crow--off stage with secrecy, subtlety, and a smile. By posing as the good knight, the Pretender has revealed all the vices of Arthur's betrayer and none of the virtues. Indeed, George W. Bush denouncing Trent Lott is like Lucifer defining loyalty.

Try as they might, the Pretender and the Senator will not make us forget Burns and Allen. Neither will they become regulars on Saturday Night Live. Their repeated attempts to win Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor in an Outrageous Role is annoying the audience and the academy.

On the same day the Pretender faulted Senator Lott, he violated separation of church and state in the city where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed, in the place that was the capital of the United States when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Was that the hypocrite's daily double, or was it tic tac toe for the clueless? After such a performance, one wonders if Mae West's co-star in My Little Chickadee would still want his tombstone to read: "Here lies W.C. Fields. I would rather be living in Philadelphia." For it was acts like The George and Trent Show that killed vaudeville.

Had George Wallace been the Democratic candidate in 2000, George W. Bush would have used the same tactics in Florida. Yes, the votes of John and Mary Q. Public would have been ignored even though they look like the folks from central casting--Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice. But Wallace would have found the "pussyfooting" intolerable.

Mark Twain was right: "Truth is stranger than fiction." To wit, if Shakespeare will forgive me:

The time is out of joint, O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right.
The Pretender's in the White House, 'tis true;
And the President hosts Saturday Night.

(c)2002 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

Trust

This piece originally appeared on Democrats.com under Hot Topics on September 19, 2002.

In his recent remarks before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the gentleman from Wyoming made the case for attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But too much doubt still hangs over the subject to admit of the unqualified adoption of the gentleman's ingenious conjectures, to paraphrase John H. Barry. For with changes in just a few words, the former head at Halliburton makes the case for fact attacks on his duplicity, and that of his principal, followed by a full-scale truth assault leading to regime change in the United States.

Falsehood is never overcome on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy. We will take every step necessary to make sure our Constitution is secure, and we will prevail.

The case of Richard Cheney, a sworn enemy of our Constitution, demands a candid appraisal of the facts. Many of us are convinced that Richard Cheney will acquire new veil weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best circumstances. This is especially the case when you are dealing with an illegitmate regime that has made a science out of deceiving the international community.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Richard Cheney now has weapons of mass deception; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive global ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors, confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today and the ones he will develop with his oil wealth.

What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter for our posterity to resolve.

Cheney has perfected the game of scoot and retreat, and is very skilled in the art of denial and deception. A return of oversight would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with the Constitution.

If the other States could have preempted Florida 2000, they would have. No question. Should we be able to prevent another much more devastating attack, we will. No question. This nation will not live at the mercy of fascists or fascist regimes.

Our goal would be an America true to its great and inspring ideals, a government that is constitutional and pluralistic, a nation where the human rights of every ethnic group are recognized and protected.

In this troubled land, all who seek justice and dignity and the chance to live their own lives ought to know they have a friend and ally somewhere in the United States of America.

It is galling to see someone trotted out as Mr. National Security who never served in the Armed Forces, the Intelligence Community, or the Diplomatic Corps. The objection is not simply because he failed to answer his country's call. Once, when asked about his numerous deferments during the Vietnam War, he replied, "I had other priorities in the Sixties than military service." And that is why some of us served, so that others might exercise their rights under the law to get deferments or be conscientious objectors. But why, when President Clinton was called a draft dodger by members of his party, did he not challenge such statements?

Although the gentleman from Wyoming did not stand up to be counted when it mattered, hopefully he will not condemn others for speaking out and asking questions when it does: Are your children in the Armed Forces, the Intelligence Community, or the Diplomatic Corps? Are your boss's and his brother's children going to serve? Will any of them see action other than getting drunk, writing their own prescriptions, driving on other people's lawns, or exposing one's self in a public parking lot?

George Washington was truly Commander in Chief of the Continental Forces. He was in the thick of the fight. Bullets whizzed by him and even tore his clothing.

Abraham Lincoln was an officer in the Black Hawk War. He did not see action. But he had volunteered and was prepared to go.

John Kennedy used his father's connections to get into the Navy when he could have easily gotten a deferment on genuine medical grounds. He could have been a desk jockey, but he chose to be a PT boat skipper. The Navy and Marine Corps Medal and the Purple Heart attest to his courage and leadership.

During the Whiskey Rebellion, President Washington's first instinct was to wonder where was his faithful steed. He mounted up and personally reviewed the troops. But what is the first instinct of the gentleman from Wyoming? To run off to his secure, undisclosed location and wonder who brought the scotch?

During the Civil War, as General McClellan dallied, President Lincoln asked him if he might borrow the Army for a while. Last year, as the gentleman from Texas dallied during a national crisis, some wondered what it would be like to have a leader for a while.

During the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy ruled out preemptive air strikes even though there was a direct threat to the United States. The Commander in Chief decided upon a naval blockade in order to give Krushchev time to think. He called it a quarantine so as not to be provocative.

Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy. Each possessed the humility that comes from knowing hostilities are more than hypothetical and one's imminent demise is a definite possibility.

Yes, the Texan was in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. But he was a ticket punching pilot and a sunshine patriot. Meanwhile, the gentleman from Wyoming procured five draft deferments. Like Tarzan swinging from tree to tree to tree, he grabbed one student deferment after another. When the vines ran out, he ran into Jane's arms and got a marriage deferment. And when the Selective Service said married men who were not fathers would have to go, he promptly got her pregnant. For someone so bellicose, the former lord of the jungle gives new meaning to chicken a la king. But should the lives of our troops be in the hands of a man who went AWOL? Or should their fate be left to a vicarious veteran? Is it surprising that so many senior officers of the national security establishment are opposed to Operation Chicken Hawk?

The present threat is another diversion. Instead of an independent investigation of last year's tragedy, we are offered a Department of H_ _ _land Security. Never mind the fact that the Framers did not use such a word--they preferred continental--the purpose of the present office and the proposed department is to provide cover for incompetence or callousness or both. And that is the best one can say. The gang that cannot play the game straight does not want any investigations, whether the Florida election of 2000, the energy papers, or Halliburton's problems. They prefer invasion to revelation, because they do not understand that this is a country--not a country club. So they sip their martinis--gently stirred, not shaken--and gather up their bottle or drug-induced courage and plan a war. They fancy themselves Caesar and Augustus. But we have seen their nakedness. An invasion of Iraq would allow the evasion of the truth to continue.

The Framers saw the President of the United States as tribunus plebis. Does anyone, other than those suffering from willful blindness, see either the former Governor of Texas or his partner as a tribune of the people after they ignored vox populi in the Florida election?

The Founding Fathers made certain that our country showed "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" in an internal affair, a dispute between the mother country and the provinces. "And for the support of this Declaration," they said, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Some of us, who have family and friends in danger of losing life and limb, wonder about a Declaration of Independence written by Little Georgie Four Strikes and Clubhouse Cheney: "A decided contempt for the opinions of mankind requires that we declare our intention to do whatsoever we please.... And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance upon the protection of corporate profits, we mutually pledge to each other your lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor." After all, their greatest care is Chablis and caviar.

(c) 2002 Marvin D. Jones. All rights reserved.

Exit Polls, Part II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_summary.pdf

ANALYSIS OF THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL EXIT POLL DISCREPANCIES

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

Exit Polls

LETTER TO WALTER MITOFSKY AND LARRY ROSIN FROM REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electionpollingltr12005.pdf

EVALUATION OF EDISON/MITOFSKY ELECTION SYSTEM 2004

http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

REPORT SUGGESTS CHANGES IN EXIT POLL METHODOLOGY

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/index.html

STUDY OF THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION EXIT POLL DISCREPANCIES--RESPONSE TO EDISON/MIITOFSKY ELECTION SYSTEM 2004 REPORT

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

THE CONYERS REPORT

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

(Pages 72-78 deal with exit polls.)

REPUBLICAN CHALLENGES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BASED ON EXIT POLLS

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=396&row=0

GOP WANTS TO END EXIT POLLS

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04027.html

VOTERGATE 2004? RESEARCH STUDIES UNCOVER POTENTIAL MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD

http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm

POWELL WARNS UKRAINE OVER 'RESULT'

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112504W.shtml

TESTIMONY OF JOHN TEFFT, POWELL'S ASSISTANT, CITING THE VALUE OF EXIT POLLS

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/108/tef120704.htm

EXIT POLLS VERSUS FINAL RESULTS...COMPARING STATES WITH AND WITHOUT VOTER PAPER TRAILS

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00000906.htm

THE EXIT POLL DISPARITY--MYSTERY SOLVED!

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001132.htm

GAMING THE EXIT POLLS

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00000992.htm

EXIT POLL BIG LIE EXPOSED

http://blog.democrats.com/node/2755

EXIT POLLSTERS LIE ABOUT KERRY'S VICTORY

http://blog.democrats.com/node/2719

A CORRUPTED ELECTION

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970

THE BUSH RULE OF JOURNALISM

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011705.html

Words

This piece was originally sent to subscribers, and appeared on Democrats.com under Hot Topics, on September 19, 2002.

Thought, word, and deed are indivisible. Yet too often we are oblivious to the obvious.

The truth helps us to think clearly. Falsehood confuses. The one supports freedom, and the other destroys it. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

While preparing an Independence Day library exhibit for the good people of a small town in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, one word appeared repeatedly: The Founding Fathers met in the Continental Congress. They created a Continental Army, a Continental Navy, and the Continental Marines. GIs, at that time, were called Continentals. John Adams was the head of the Continental Board of War and Ordnance. George Washington was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Forces. In peacetime, Alexander Hamilton, Receiver of Continental Taxes, which were placed in the Continental Treasury, pushed for a Federal Convention in a series of newspaper articles entitled "The Continentalist." And after writing the Constitution, the Framers wanted candidates for the Presidency to be "continental characters."

Four score and seven years after the Revolution, President Lincoln spoke of how "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." In December of 1960, President-elect Kennedy asked Secretary of Defense-designate Robert McNamara about "continental defense." Then, as President, he set up budget categories along functional lines for the land, air, and sea forces. One of which was "Continental Air and Missile Defense Forces." Furthermore, until recently, it was common for the Armed Forces to refer to "the continental United States."

We study history to remember who and what we are. Thus, we celebrate Independence Day. But we also study history to avoid making the same mistakes repeatedly—whether our own or the mistakes of others.

H_ _ _land is an alien term. Webster's defines it as fatherland or a place for a particular ethnic or racial group.

History is clear. Those who used Continental have a better record of establishing and maintaining the Republic—another word preferred by the Framers—than those who invoke h_ _ _ land. For alien words and alien ways can corrupt and lead us astray, and they can, ultimately, destroy our freedom. It is, therefore, understandable why the Founders said—and their heirs still say—“continental.”

(c) 2002 Marvin D. Jones. All rights reserved.