When Quiet Desperation Mutates to Irrational Violence: The Evolution of Panocide

ImageA society fraught with class injustice can expect explosive eruptions of violent psychosis manifested in arbitrary slaughter of anyone and everyone – Panocide.

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.” – Thoreau, “Walden”

Ah, the sweet breath of life fills our nostrils with the air which fuels our body’s metabolic engine and allows us to envision, and sometimes achieve, the potential for happiness and personal gratification which we are all born with; equally. From the moment of our first breath until our last, something transforms our potential for rejoicing in the abundance of ‘natural’ bounty to perpetual suppression of even the most modest enjoyment. Some individual, group, or organization finds a means of selectively denying access to the abundance of ‘natural’ bounty. They call it ‘society’, or the principles which allow multitudes of human beings to live together as ‘social’ creatures.

To have ‘society’ we must have laws and principles which provide security for all human beings. These laws and principles must be carefully fashioned and crafted in such a manner they provide equal security and liberty to all. Alas, mankind has yet to construct a social fabric which does not twist and distort the public good to transform the good intentions of honor and justice to selectively favor the elite members of society who fabricate these laws and principles. Since human beings are fashioned by their Creator with an inherent concept of fairness and justice, those who seek ‘special’ consideration must be willing to provide something in exchange; something considered of universal value, like gold and precious objects. The acquisition of these precious commodities ensures the possessors of their ‘special’ favors while denying such ‘special’ treatment to others. Thus was born the leverage which separated the haves from the have-nots. Time has allowed the genius of the human mind to fashion myriad methods of justifying, magnifying, and perpetuating these “class” distinctions born of wealth. Global politics has been a case study of how numerous ideological ‘good intentions’ have been twisted, annulled and distorted by those with the wealth and means to do so.

Human cleverness and ingenuity notwithstanding, occasional transitions occur from have-not to have by fabricating a means of more efficiently and effectively providing for the needs of human beings; or by more stealthily committing larceny within legal constraints; conforming to laws fashioned by the privileged “class” possessing wealth and subsequent political leverage – entrepreneurs. It is essential, at this point, to make a distinction between those who acquire wealth by means of their creative ingenuity in fashioning resources which provide goods and services which enhance the human condition and those who employ their wealth to maximize their own self-interests. Thus the distinction between those who are morally and spiritually upright, blessed with wealth, and those who are morally and spiritually bankrupt and use their wealth for the Imagesole purpose of indulging their obsession with wealth, power and the acquisition thereof – the Aristazzi. A name fabricated from the word “aristocrat” – to describe those who enjoy wealth and power by ‘divine right’ – and “paparazzi” – a somewhat self-interested and perhaps a bit parasitic “class” of news photographers who disregard all elements of personal rights to privacy, or propriety, to produce wanton images of celebrities.

Intellectuals, patronized by the wealthy elite, produce prose which embodies ideas, concepts, ideology, and rationalization consecrating the virtue of oppressive injustices. Injustices manifested by denial of ‘natural’ bounty to the less fortunate lacking the wealth to pay for that which God bestows without cost or charge. These intellectuals have fabricated concepts such as Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Theocracy, Monarchy, Democracy, and etc., all to justify and legitimize those who subscribe to their description of social distinctions. Nevertheless, the less fortunate, continue to be assured continued denial of fundamental needs and unalienable rights by a plague of taxes, penalties, fees, charges, and etc..

The virtuous intellectual architects of the United States Constitution were the first, in the history of the world, to fabricate a government which granted sovereignty and supremacy to the People and the regional governments they fashioned – by consent of the governed. No sooner was this revolutionary style of government approved and encoded as law than it came under attack by the Aristazzi and, before the Constitution had existed for one decade, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government was supreme; despite the tenth amendment which explicitly stated the People and the States were supreme and the Federal government had no more powers than what was specifically provided by the Constitution. The following two hundred years have seen a prolonged and contrived agenda manifested by the Aristazzi to usurp all power from the People and the States.

The heinous practices of the Aristazzi may be imposed without consequence; as long as the victims remain ignorant of injustices. Educated people will be much less likely to submit to egregious and reprehensible abuses than ignorant people. This ‘natural’ concept has resulted, and been expressed, in ambivalent outcomes in the United States. The right of the people to vote has produced both a Public Education system which was formerly internationally second to none and the opportunity of the elite oligarchy, in Washington, D.C., to transform Public Education to Public Indoctrination according to the prevailing ideology. The result is the “Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” (Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt) to facilitate and promote the minimization of the People to influence and manifest government to express their civic responsibility and sovereignty.Image

It may be possible to introduce a multitude of additional examples of ‘good intentions’ sabotaged by the minions of the Aristazzi, but the onerous result is in the social conditions which produce the “quiet desperation” of those who wish only to enjoy a modest enjoyment of life for themselves and their posterity. A modest enjoyment of life which is and continues to be denied by the abhorrent and despicable obsession with wealth which incessantly denies all but the Aristazzi the enjoyment of life’s ‘natural’ bounty. The multitude of victims is largely controlled by legislative constraints and laws which control and suppress any subsequent emergence of organized opposition.

Regardless of the fact there is no conceivable justification for genocide, homicide, infanticide, or any other barbarian denial of life, the plain and simple fact is that it has, does, and will continue to occur. Intellectuals may fruitlessly seek to rationalize the irrational results of pent up rage and desperation. Legislators may continue to legislate punitive efforts to deter aberrant and irrational behavior. Medical practitioners and specialized experts may seek explanation of the unexplainable. No matter what efforts may be employed to ease the public menace and uneasy realization there is absolutely no way of predicting or preventing Panocide, it will continue to be an equal opportunity threat without regard to innocence, age, creed or class. Nobody will ever be able to predict what will be the mental ‘straw that broke the Camel’s back’, triggering the irrational, random, and tragic outcome of Panocide. True change will only begin when causes and conditions of intentional exploitation or abuse of unalienable human rights for the sole purpose of ensuring the privileges of elite few are addressed. Governments will never be able to ensure the security and safety of the governed so long as privilege governs government. Panocide will continue so long as equal opportunity to achieve the full potential of every human being is obstructed by intervention favoring those who will never be satisfied or content with their wealth and privilege – the Aristazzi.


ARE Corporations Natural Persons?

ImageIf SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO.,118 U.S. 394 (1886) had not been initiated by the Supreme Court (without argument), corporations would not be allowed to enjoy all the rights and privileges accorded “natural” citizens under the Constitution. But wait – not only do they have all the rights of a “natural” citizen, but more. A citizen can be prosecuted and sent to jail for larceny. Corporations can steal billions of tax-payer dollars from the government but cannot be prosecuted because no single executive can be proven to have committed a crime. Corporations are protected from prosecution because they assume collective liability. However, since Supreme Court decision 118 US 394, SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. (1886) allows corporations to sue and be sued; it seemImages that any Washington bureaucracy retaining an attorney on their staff would be able to sue violating corporations – if they WANTED to. However, the fact is that Washington is not government of, by and for the PEOPLE, but government of, by, and for the dollar!

American Exceptionalism

ImagePin Drop     

At a time when our president and other politicians tend to apologize for our country’s prior actions, here’s a refresher on how some of our past patriots handled negative comments about our country:

JFK’S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60’s when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US Military out of France as soon as possible. 

Rusk responded, “Does that include those who are buried here?” 

DeGaulle did not respond. 

You Could have heard a pin drop. 


When in England , At a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of ’empire building’ by George Bush. 

He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of Its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom Beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not Return.” 

You Could have heard a pin drop.


There was a conference in France Where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, One of the French engineers came back into the room saying, “Have you Heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he Intend to do, bomb them?” 

A Boeing engineer Stood up and replied quietly: “Our carriers have three Hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to Feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a Dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and  from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?” 

You Could have heard a pin drop.


A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French navies At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many Languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, “Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?” 

Without hesitating, The American admiral replied, “Maybe it’s because the Brit’s, Canadians, Aussie’s and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t Have to speak German.”

You Could have heard a pin drop. 



Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport In his carry on. 

“You have been to France before, monsieur?” the customs officer asked sarcastically. 

Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. 

“Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.” 

The American said, “The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.” 

“Impossible.. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France!” 

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day, in 1944, to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.” 

You Could have heard a pin drop.


If You are proud to be an American and believe in American Exceptionalism, share this! If not…

Master Misleader Obama: The Artful Dodger in the White House

The President of the United States, Barrack Hussein Obama, must think the world is full of idiots that can be misled and will believe whatever he says, like the people who elected him in two elections. The world, however, is not composed of racists who are bent upon retaliation or entitlement compensation for all their perceived injustices. Nor does it consist of people who are consumed with an attractive face or proving they are not racists. Obama may be able to fool some of the people in the United States all of the time, and fool all of them some of the time, but he cannot fool all of the people all of the time! Nor can he fool the world any of the time!

It was bad enough when the world watched the people of the United States elect an obscure unknown without vetting him. Simply because he was ‘half African’ he won certification as the first “black” post racist president. He won certification by the DNC as being qualified as a candidate for President of the United States simply because he was allegedly born in the United States; an “anchor baby“. Because of being born on US soil, he could have been conceived and raised by two foreign national parents who were felons in other nations. Despite the fact the Constitution makes the specific distinction between the President and Vice-President, as opposed to any other elective office, as being required to be “natural born“. The architects of our nation believed some concepts to be fundamental and universally understood (not requiring definition) like “natural born” meaning the child of two citizen parents; and “marriage” meant wedlock between a man and a woman. Little did the members of Congress know, in 1776, “progressive” citizens of the contemporary USA would not know the definition of “natural born” or “marriage”. Perhaps the definition of “father” no longer means a male parent, or the definition of “mother” no longer means a female parent!

In view of the fact the United States government has passed the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th amendments, it’s no small wonder that the legislators and legislation in this country have degenerated to the point where mediocrity would be an improvement. Voting rights do not require intelligence, civic education, or any kind of investment in electoral outcomes. There are no constraints to ensure those who vote are even qualified to vote. Neither is there any requirements to ensure that one is even a citizen and/or assures one vote for one person. There is cavalier management of ballot certification and counting which presents many opportunities for undetected abuses.  I think it’s reasonable to believe there are those who would allow foreigners to vote if it would benefit them or their interests.

In this deplorable degeneration of the high ideals and dreams of the Revolutionary leaders of this country, we now find ourselves with a half-American, half-African, pseudo-intellectual who is hell bent on retaliation for all the social injustices he perceives in the United States and throughout the world. Although he claims to be Christian, his only known Christian association was with the racist ministry of Jeremiah Wright. If a person evaluated his spiritual beliefs based upon his attitudes and behaviors, rather than the words of his mouth (which have, more often than not, proven to be opportunistic if not outright mendacious), anyone would easily see his predisposition and favor for Islam. This combined with his racism and retaliatory attitudes subscribed to from his Kenyan dissenter father, has fostered his radical and dangerous foreign policy decisions advancing the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

With his military intervention in support of the Libyan uprising against Muammar Gaddafi Obama granted rebel Muslim Extremists access to the weapons depositories of this dictator who had been maintaining a relatively peaceful disposition with the West. Not only were the rebels granted access to conventional weapons stores, but any and all chemical weapons and fabrication facilities which had escaped the supervision of United Nations oversight. In view of the slaughter of the United States’ ambassador and staff members in Benghazi, and the subsequent non-disclosure and cover-up of the factual circumstances surrounding this travesty, one can only wonder where the Gaddafi weapons stores went. The possibility of them falling into the hands of Syrian rebels cannot be excluded.

Then, not altogether dissimilar to Obama’s unnecessary, but capriciously injected racist remarks concerning the Zimmerman-Trayvon tragedy, the president injected his remarks concerning the Syrian “red line”, which he now seeks to deny with allegations he was referring to an international “Red Line”. The facts, however, do not bear out Obama’s denials and actual remarks:

We have been very clArtfulDodger2ear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.” – Obama, August 20, 2012

I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” – Obama, Sept. 4, 2013

If the “world set the red line” regarding chemical weapons and appropriate response to their use, why didn’t the UN vote to condemn the much more massive use of chemical weapons to perpetrate genocide against the Iraqi Kurds? In August 1988 the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. Despite the lack of evidence to support Obama’s allegation regarding the world setting the “red line”, what Obama’s remark did accomplish was giving the rebels an opportunity for clandestine use of Libyan or Iraqi chemical agents against Syrians while simultaneously proffering an opportunity to blame Assad for crossing Obama’s “red line”. Based upon a history of brutal and barbarian slaughter by the Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood mercenaries, their opportunistic use of chemical weapons is neither inconceivable or illogical. On the other hand, the use of these weapons against his own people with so few reported rebel casualties when Assad was prevailing against the rebels and in defiance of Obama’s “red line” would be neither reasonable nor rational. August 21, 2013 chemical weapons were used and Obama immediately responded by his decision to use military intervention in response.

Then the Russian President, Putin, proposed that Syria turn their weapons over to global supervision. The Syrians were agreeable. These diplomatic proposals for resolving the Syrian issues were in sharp contrast to Obama’s Chicago-thug type diplomacy with military intervention. Obama claims that the primary goal of military intervention is preservation of national security by containment of chemical weapons from terrorist access. If that were the truthful objective, why is Obama supporting Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who will gain control of any chemical agents, weapons, or manufacturing facilities in Syria if and when they prevail against Assad. Now, after the nation and the world have expressed vigorous opposition to Obama’s treasonous efforts to aid and abet enemies of the United States, Obama claims his efforts to defy Russia, China, Iran, and other global powers were crucial to initiating discussion of diplomatic options. If Obama had ever had any intention of diplomatic resolution to the Syrian civil war, he would never have made his “red line” invitation to the Syrian rebels to perpetrate a fraudulent chemical attack and then, when it occurred, immediately respond with a decision to use military intervention.

Bottom line: Obama is not a friend to the peace and security of the United States of America. He has family ties to hostile enemy ideologies as well as a known history of education and training in ideology hostile to United States interests. He is a clear advocate and sympathizer with racist aggression. He is supporting and advocating ideologies and foreign interests hostile to United States economic and political security. Allowing Obama to continue upon the path he is following is a clear and present danger to the national interests of the United States of America which transcends any past impeachable offenses brought forth against any previous US President!

The Syrian Connection: Assad Must Fall so the Dollar Doesn’t


In 1913 the monied elite I refer to as the #Aristazzi enacted the Federal Reserve Act which gave an elite board of bankers control of the US Currency and Federal finance policies. The self-interested policies and manipulations of US economics have made a major contribution to national and global fiscal crisis including the Great Depression and it’s prolongation, the 1970’s Oil Embargo and the subsequent recession of the 80’s, and the on-going Great Recession.

Congress passed the Gold Reserve Act on 30 January 1934; the measure nationalized all gold by ordering the Federal Reserve banks to turn over their supply to the U.S. Treasury. In return the banks received gold certificates to be used as reserves against deposits and Federal Reserve notes.

President Richard Nixon ended direct international convertibility of the dollar to gold on August 15, 1971. The value of the #USD then became based predominantly upon faith. Recognizing the reality that the lack of convertibility of the dollar to some tangible precious metal(s) fostered the need to shift the value to another tangible item in global demand: Oil. The OPEC nations’ use of the USD as the unit of exchange ensured that US dollars would continue to be the measure of global fiscal value…as long as the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries continued to use the USD.

Now there is an alliance of nations which seek to shift from the USD, including #Syria, #Russia, #China, #Iran, and possibly others I am not aware of. I understand that #Iraq and #Afghanistan were leaning toward a shift to the #Euro prior to US intervention. Syria will not go easily into the Russian camp, into the Gazprom fold, into the European energy market sphere. For if it does, the entire USDollar system of commerce and the USTreasury Bond system of reserves management will fall by the wayside and open a new era with Eastern dominance. Syria is the tipping point and catalyst which will make or break the US debt-based economy and our worthless dollars!

The Aristazzi: America’s Obscenely Wealthy

I make no claim that wealth is evil; there have been, and are many people of great wealth who do good. However; the more wealth and power a person has the more capacity and potential for corruption and tyranny. All one need do is conduct a cursory examination of wealth disparities and distribution of wealth, in any time or nation, to determine that wealth dictates access to Liberty and Justice. Wealth also dictates whose values prevail in any and all sociopolitical systems; and the greater the wealth the greater the rights, culminating in rule by ‘divine right’ under the auspices of the Aristazzi. The Aristazzi are the obscenely wealthy elite who employ their wealth, in the United States and elsewhere, to manipulate and control government to their own self-gratification and hedonism. Neither am I the first to recognize this simple fact for Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

By Imposition of Domestic Multiculturalism and global Monoculturalism; the world will not become a paradise, nor will the destruction of America, as the liberal “progressives” would have us believe. Nor will all the nations of the world suddenly adopt “Transnationalism”. It is not one culture the world desires, but “Liberty and Justice for all” which will never be achieved as long as there are those in the Aristazzi who think everyone else is inferior and should be subservient to them.

Occasionally justice may still prevail in this formerly great nation, as Liberty and Justice under God gradually perishes from neglect. This case is an example of the type of Obama/Holder/DNC racism and corruption embodied in quasi-professional Left-Wing “progressive” agents who gather counter-intelligence for political espionage. The simple fact is that the Democratic Party will do ANYTHING to preserve their right to voter fraud and assurance of ignorance in voting which is their major, and perhaps ONLY, means of ensuring electoral success.

I appreciate the idealism of those dedicated to the core principles of the RNC, and Washington’s partisan homogeneity, but the inability of the Republican Party to present alternatives which are anything more substantive than simply contradicting Democrats is simply granting election after election to the Democrats. If the Republican Party supports the Constitution then shouldn’t they take action to prosecute those who violate it rather than going along with the violations ‘in case’ Republicans wish to commit the same violations? If the Republican Party is opposed to growing the government and fiscal irresponsibility, then mightn’t they advocate legislation to balance the budget? If the Republican Party supports “free market” Capitalism, then why would they EVER vote for legislation to allow government intervention in the “free market”? If the Republican Party is opposed to repeal of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments th

Wealth = Plunder

Wealth = Plunder

en perhaps they should stop supporting legislation which abdicates those rights. If the Republican Party supports our immigration laws and the Constitutional requirement that the President and Vice-President be “natural born”, then perhaps they would not support amnesty legislation which disregards our immigration laws and national security. If the Republican Party wishes to reflect the values which were the cornerstone of this Constitutional Republic, then isn’t it time they stopped endorsing the policies and privileges of the “progressive” Aristazzi and restored the sovereignty and supremacy of the People? If the Republican Party does nothing but approve Democrat initiatives and there is no discernible difference between the partisan outcomes, then what difference does it make which party I vote for; it will be the Democrats, anti-capitalists, and anti-constitutionalists who win!

Neither have I ever expressed opposition to government or Capitalism, which were two of the fundamental precepts of Karl Marx. Karl Marx considered government evil and was an advocate of anarchy in which the people shared equally in ownership of all political resources. This would preclude the need for laws and lawmakers to manage and protect the proletariat. He was also firmly opposed to Capitalism as the root of all injustices perpetrated by the ‘privileged’ class who accumulated a disproportionate share of wealth and power to perpetrate abuses upon others. I absolutely advocate Capitalism as the ONLY existing viable means of establishing the incentive and structure necessary to encourage production, research, and the potential for tangible gratification for hard work and creativity.

What I vigorously oppose is the concept of wealth granting all who choose to make the accumulation of wealth their sole purpose in life some ‘divine’ right of ‘supremacy’ and everyone else is inferior. Throughout history, until the United States Constitution granted ‘supremacy’ and sovereignty to The People, all those who chose contentment and purpose in anything other than the accumulation of wealth were suppressed, controlled, and abused by laws which granted the Aristazzi the right to ‘plunder’ whatever and whoever they chose (Bastiat). Any time government laws or policies are allowed to interfere in economics it ceases to be a ‘free market’, and any student of economics knows that a ‘free market’ is absolutely essential to Capitalism.

It serves no practical purpose to be ‘against wealth’, or its acquisition, which is the ‘fuel’ which drives and incentivizes the Capitalistic mechanism. Morality demands opposition to the abuse of wealth and the injustice perpetrated by the mega-wealthy Aristazzi in their gross manipulation of the Federal government. They have used their wealth to grant the Federal government ‘supremacy’ since Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796) when the Supreme Court first relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute; the Civil War when the “Union” denied States the right to secede from the “United” States; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) which gave corporations rights as “natural persons” without the same moral and ethical accountability; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which abdicated the Federal government’s rights to manage coinage and currency, giving it over to an elite group of presidential appointees; the passage of the 16th amendment (1913) giving the Federal government the power to tax ALL income (albeit congress later passed IRS rules which allowed the Aristazzi to exempt their income with tax shelters and offshore accounts); the 17th amendment (1913) which denied states the right to select Senators; and etc..

The bottom line is that sovereignty and supremacy has been steadily undermined and usurped from the People and the States in which they reside, in violation of the 10th amendment. At the same time sovereignty and supremacy has been concentrated in the hands of an elite oligarchy in Washington, D.C.. As if that isn’t enough degradation of our Constitutional Republic, the president has concentrated more and more power through Executive Orders and little or no accountability to Congress or the People. And Congress has abdicated more and more power to agencies and bureaucracies with the ability to execute Administrative Rules carrying the weight of law with virtually NO accountability to Congress or the People. The result is that the United States is now little more than an elite oligarchy deriving its power from Aristazzi dispensation and without even a shred of courage to admit they make the rules but are neither elected nor entitled to rule by ‘divine right’ or ‘providential sanction’!

I firmly believe in the plausibility of life with values which grant ALL men and women the supreme right and sovereignty to govern themselves and rise to whatever level of wealth their individual efforts allow; like the water in a well rises to its appropriate level. All we need from the Aristazzi to get out of the way so mankind may be permitted the freedom to think, act, and create freely while engaging in whatever political, ideological, or moral beliefs they may embrace!

Public Policy Polarization

Development of Public Policy, according to Charles E. Lindblom in his article The Science of “Muddling Through” [1], requires a rational process which is either optimal or not. He makes a distinction between the two processes and alleges that the optimal approach may work well for less complex issue resolution but, for major policies of a more complex nature, the time and difficulty required for the preferred methodology must be waived in favor of “muddling through” with the alternative approach. On the other hand, Anthony Downs in his article Up and down with ecology – the ”issue-attention cycle” (Locker, lecture) describes a five-step process for developing public policy he calls the “issue-attention cycle”. It appears there is a common denominator which prevails in both approaches to analysis of policy development, and that is the indispensable analysis of public ‘values’. Although one could never overlook other crucial elements of public policy making, it seems rational to delegate a primary degree of importance to at least some element of consensus in public ‘values’. This would beg the question, how can a consensus be established regarding public ‘values’ if multiculturalism is skewing the consensus with reluctance to assimilate or compromise ethnic and/or secular values? It would seem that the more unassimilated cultural diversity, as described by Samuel Huntington in “One Nation Out of Many: Why ‘Americanization’ of Newcomers Is Still Important” (Magazine article from The American Enterprise, Vol. 15, No. 6), the less ‘value’ consensus.

Lindblom suggests the best method of developing public policy involves an administrator listing all related values in order of importance, then all possible policy outcomes could be rated as more or less efficient in maximizing these values. This would of course require a prodigious inquiry into values held by members of society and an equally prodigious set of calculations on how much of each value is equal to how much of each other value. He could then proceed to outline all possible policy alternatives. In a third step, he would undertake systematic comparison of his multitude of alternatives to determine which attains the greatest amount of values. The preceding steps are admittedly costly, complex, and time-consuming. Therefore, Lindblom suggests simpler alternative options which he identifies as Rational-Comprehensive (Root) or Successive Limited Comparisons (Branch). Each of these methods involves a five-step process beginning with the identification, clarification, and selection of ‘values’; policy-formulation; means-end analysis; testing of “good” and appropriate policy; comprehensive analysis; and determination of reliance upon theory.

A topic presented during in-class lecture was the five-step ”issue-attention cycle” described by Anthony Downs. This process of addressing public policy-making outlined the circumstances which must exist in addressing public issues. According to Downs, not all major social problems go through this “issue-attention cycle.” The first component of the “issue-attention cycle” is the “Pre-problem stage” before the public becomes aware of the issue. The second is the “Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm” stage when the public becomes both aware of the issue and alarmed. The third stage is “Realizing the cost of significant progress” which will be required to solve the problem, and invariably involves some sacrifice by all interests. The fourth stage is the “Gradual decline of intense public interest” which occurs as affected interests become aware of the personal costs involved in the ‘solution’. The last stage is the “Post-problem stage” when the problem focus moves into a prolonged period of suspended or diminished activity due to decreased public attention during the first two stages (Locker, lecture).

Development of public policy must conform to political principles which govern all decision-making; who’s values prevail, who gets what, where, when, and how. There are tools available to decision-makers which have been formulated in development of empiric methodology, by Political Scientists. The tools and methodology proposed by Lindblom and Anthony Downs were developed under the presupposition of cultural homogeneity in the United States. The ‘deconstruction’ and polarization produced by “establishment institutions” which control political resources but do not reflect the consensus of the constituency are destructive of the “core culture” and/or the American creed when they seek to impose unnatural cultural changes without assimilation of cultures. The “indigestibility” of cultures which refuse assimilation, under the false flag of “diversity”, facilitates foreign and/or domestic enemies to implement their agendas of subterfuge while divisiveness and inability to foster consensus paralyzes the political machinery of our Constitutional Republic. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” What he failed to consider was the cultural imperative: There can be no unity where cultures are antithetical.

[1] The Science of “Muddling Through”, Charles E. Lindblom, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1959), pp. 79-88, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration