N.A.A.A.P. Perspective

Spring 1995—Vol. II, No. 2

TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FAIL
BALANCED BUDGET & TERM LIMITS

The Contract With America marches on. So far, so good. But two big issues failed to pass muster—the balanced budget amendment and term limits. The term limits amendment has just failed apparently because too many of our congressmen and senators consider themselves too valuable to the nation to be subjected to such arbitrary fixed limits. This smacks of unmitigated arrogance, but it is hardly surprising that our men in Washington didn't vote overwhelmingly to curtail their own careers. The will of 80% of the frustrated public has been thwarted according to the pollsters. But maybe it was a good thing after all.

I'm as fed up with mis-representation as anybody, and once thought term limits a good idea, but I'm not too disappointed that the measure failed. Amending the Constitutional is serious business for serious people.

I'd much rather see a massive rollback of Congressional salaries and perks—make being a congressman or senator a part-time job with part-time pay. Limit the time Congress can devote to passing laws. (No hope of this, I realize.) I'm less fed up with a "do-nothing" Congress than one that has been doing too damned much damage to the country for too long. I sometimes have the feeling that gridlock in government was our best hope for the preservation of what freedom we have left.

The turnover in the November, 1994 elections did give some fresh hope. And a lot of the new blood is not from the lawyer class. We may now have some real populists in office. At least there is a lot of good populist rhetoric. If we got some good men, (or even women) it would be nice to be able to keep them. Many of the freshmen congressmen may be assets to the nation.

The Republican leadership seems to really want term limits. Why? Are they responding to the public will, as I'm sure they wish to appear to be doing? Here's something to think about. It really could be something else entirely. There could be something more sinister behind the push for term limits than meets the eye. Just where did the idea for term limits originate anyhow? I don't know. From the information available, it appears to have come from the increasingly politician-wary people. But that isn't necessarily so. An "unseen hand" could have planted the seed in a planned attempt to stem the threat of a rising populist tide—nip it in the bud. Congress is the most powerful institution we have. Congressmen are representatives of the people, and a strong, constitutionally oriented, Congress is capable of righting the wrongs of all past Congresses. It wouldn't be good for the New World Order if true populists become as entrenched in power as the old establishment boys of both parties have been until now?

True enough, term limits would insure that all mis-representatives would sooner or later find themselves off the Congressional payroll. But it would also insure that good representatives, true to their oath of office, would be out too. If 80% of the thinking public would just go to polls and vote, term limits wouldn't even be an issue. Bad representation would be self-limiting. Support for term limits basically reflects the desire for an automatic "throw the rascals our amendment." We appear to want to be able do it without the inconvenience of going to the polls—even if it means throwing the baby out with the bath water. Term limits certainly wouldn't insure that the public would elect responsible representatives, but it would definitely insure that good representatives could not be retained in office.

THE BALANCED BUDGET

The other plank of the Republicans' Contract with America that bit the dust, was the balanced budget amendment. That had wide public support too. The public is understandably fed up with out-of-control federal spending. I'm surprised it didn't pass. Many representatives, feeling the heat of public pressure, would like to be relieved of their uncomfortable responsibility for the hard choices required to balance the budget—a constitutional amendment would supposedly force them, kicking and screaming, to do the distasteful work!

I'm not so sure it would. Both issues become laughable when you think enough about them long enough. A responsible Congress would need neither amendment to act wisely.

The public has shirked its responsibility too long, just as Congress has. Both are desperately seeking quick fixes that won't really solve any problems. The only real answer is for the public to vote spendthrift rascals out and keep them out, and to vote true representatives in, then keep them in as long as they are good representatives. The proposed Constitutional amendment, if passed, would just give the public a false sense that something momentous has been accomplished, and the debt crises averted. Likely the only thing accomplished would be that the Constitution would be further diluted. Add ten volumes of amendments to it, and it would become that much less effective. As it is, we can at least know what the Constitution says—it is a rather concise document. Everybody ought to read it and understand it.

The Code of Federal Regulations, on the other hand—the handiwork of successive Congresses, administrations, and legions of federal regulators over two centuries—would fill a small barn. God only knows what all is in it. If we knew, we'd probably find out that we are all outlaws and criminals of one kind or another. We may also find out, if we look carefully enough, that our Constitution and Bill of Rights have long ago been effectively suspended. It may tell us, for example, why the president was able to commit tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to Mexico, when, according to the Constitution, Congress alone has the authority to tax and appropriate funds. Probably more than 95% of the CFR ought to be declared null and void. The nation would be better off.

The Constitution, and its amendments, don't do any good if Congress ignores them, or the Supreme Court tends to pervert them. The First Amendment hasn't prevented an anti-Christian bias, or the real threat of controlled speech (to outlaw "hate") from creeping, ever so insidiously, into the laws of the land. The Second Amendment hasn't prevented Congress from abridging the right to keep and bear arms. The Fourth Amendment hasn't prevented Congress from literally trashing Fourth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment hasn't prevented double jeopardy or forced self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment hasn't prevented federal authorities from literally railroading hapless victims, such as the Waco survivors. The Eighth Amendment hasn't prevented The United States from attaining the distinction of having by far the highest incarceration rate of any nation on earth. (Isn't years of imprisonment for victimless crimes cruel and unusual punishment? Flogging would be much more humane.) The Ninth Amendment hasn't prevented Congress from making the American people some of the most heavily regulated people on earth. The Tenth Amendment hasn't prevented Congress from usurping and abridging states' rights. How could a balanced budget amendment be expected to force Congress to balance the budget? Congress has been good at qualifying exceptions to even the most basic laws of the land, not to mention the laws of sound economics. Freedom is always sacrificed on the Siren altars of public health, public safety, and the greater public good—issues and causes that sound so good to an unwary public that has forgotten what the role of the federal government is supposed to be.

It all boils down to this. Congress has the power to act wisely, if it would only do so. Wise and true representation is required. Congress has the power to act strictly within the framework of the Constitution, if it would only do so. True patriots are required. Congress has the power to right all the wrongs of previous Congresses, if it really wished to do so. The electorate has the power to fix Congress, if it would only do so. (Could this actually be happening?) An informed, activist public is required. If the American electorate were both of these, our representatives could no longer afford to march to the tune of the moneyed special interests, foreign lobbyists, or dance to the New World Order drum roll.

Will the public and Congress do their duty? Unlikely, if we are to judge from the past. But we can't afford to give up hope or relax our effort. Things are actually looking more hopeful, but—and this is a very large BUT...

With a majority of the electorate on the public payroll in one form or another, whether through welfare, food stamps, Social Security, SSI, the military services, Civil Service, government contracts and contract-dependent employment, or other direct or indirect subsidies, civic duty can be expected to continue to take its usual back seat to financial self-interest.

Not only has the government been in gridlock, but the electorate has too. One reason is the deplorable and still declining state of public education. (Not to mention the decline of morals and ethical standards, and family values. What can you say of a society in which "adult movie" has become synonymous with "pornographic movie?" Children aspire to "adult" things!) With our public educational system in the hands of internationalists and multi-culturalists, and moral and academic standards in a state of apparently planned decline, a truly informed, American constitutionally oriented, electorate becomes less and less possible. Our political system, as intended by the founders, admittedly cannot work without at least a tolerably literate, and essentially virtuous, citizenry.

With network and cable TV, and Hollywood, serving as the nation's prime educator of our youth, (preempting even the lamentable public school system) educational prospects, and the prospects for a virtuous new generation, would seem grim indeed. Programming and media being essentially in the hands of the forces of the New World Order, and their politically correct hand-maids in academia, is decidedly not calculated to produce Sovereign citizens. The American Sovereign Citizen cannot be effectively nurtured on the likes of Butthead, Bart Simpson, or O.J.

These problems are the ancient and new unsolved problems of democracy—the precursor of socialism and anarchy. Our founding fathers chose a republican form of government for the nation as well as the individual states for good reason. It's success was contingent on a well educated and virtuous electorate. But a democracy has since been proclaimed, and universal suffrage instituted. (Universal suffrage means the most illiterate, misinformed voter cancels out the vote of the wisest and most enlightened—and the former always greatly outnumber the latter.) The result and long term prospects? Unless the electorate is upgraded considerably, universal suffering.

Camden

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM A Double-edged Sword

The subject of the Winter 1995 supplement of Camden's Commentary was entitled The Fraud and Folly of Multi-Culturalism. One way that fraud is being perpetrated is through officially sanctioned negative historical revisionism. The directives for this kind of revisionism must come from the highest levels of world-think international policy making authority. It is obvious that the perpetrators are not only hostile to the America of our founders, but that their influence permeates many, if not all, of our most prestigious institutions of higher learning. Evidence of this is abundantly clear, and is not the result of the overactive imaginations of conspiracy theorists. One glaring bit of evidence came to light last year in the proposed "National History Standards" fiasco. In this case the forces of political correctness and world-think slightly outdid themselves.

Thank God there are still enough level-headed members in the Senate to shoot them down. The Standards were so bad, in fact, that the Senate voted 99 to 1 to condemn them. The one dissenting vote was actually a vote for an even more stringent condemnation of the standards. The Standards would have turned American history on it's head by essentially writing dead white males (DWM's —a thoroughly politically correct terminology today) out of the lead roles of our national historical development and replace them with minorities and women.

The standards were the handiwork of UCLA's National Center for History in the Schools. They were patently anti-Western European, anti-white, and anti-male. They placed the American Indian and African cultures on a par with European culture as having shaped the development of the United States of America. In fact it put Indian and African influences on a higher moral plain, playing up all the negative roles and deeds of DWM's, and casting them as knaves and villains. The scary thing, and what ought to wake a few people up, is that this was a serious taxpayer funded effort, by a prestigious university and its accredited academic historians, (Gary Nash and Charlotte Crabtree being the lead revisionists)—an effort aimed at rewriting and sanitizing the American history taught our children in the public school system.

Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers said, "No other nation in the world teaches a national history that leaves its children feeling negative about their own country—this would be the first."

The same team of academic miscreants is at work on a companion World History Standards, to set the record straight in world history. The World History Standards are even more "unrelentingly anti-Western" than the American Standards are, according to Earl Bell, head of the Organization of History Teachers.

John Leo, contributing editor of U.S. News & World Report, explains, "The (academic) profession and the American Historical Association are now dominated by younger historians with a familiar agenda: Take the West down a peg, romanticize 'the Other' (non-whites), treat all cultures as equal, refrain from criticizing non-white cultures." The situation in education is bad enough, without this kind of revisionism.

Historical revisionism itself is being cast in a bad light because of this kind of tampering. Historical revisionism is, indeed, a double-edged sword. It can be good or it can be bad. The National History Standards business is a classic example of bad, or negative revisionism. Bad revisionism is where written history is uncorrected or distorted due to a perverse social or political agenda. Good revisionism is where written history is updated or corrected, and brought more closely into accord with the actual facts. It seeks unbias truth.

Good historical revisionism is necessarily an ongoing occupation of historians dedicated to true historical scholarship. Works of history are all products of their time and the social and political environments in which they are compiled and published. Often they are published before all the facts are in. Later historians, with more complete data, must then update them.

History is almost always written with one bias or another, often unintentional, whether it be the author's, or that of the government or other institution that has commissioned the work. Bias is usually mandated to at least a degree by the government under which the historian works. Literally all history written for general public, or public school consumption, has a national bias. (Though this is apparently changing, at least in the U.S.A.) This is natural, usually unavoidable, and not at all necessarily bad. After all, what nation would willingly allow itself to be cast in a villain roll before they eyes of its citizens, children, or its posterity?

What tyranny would teach its children that they live as slaves to a despotism? And what "utopia" would not wish to add just a little embellishment to it's history, and glorify and romanticize the struggle of conquest over the former owners of the land it occupies? The original inhabitants, if they survived to write their history, (free from the influence and censorship of their conquerors) would undoubtedly have a totally conflicting historical outlook.

Though most true historians do their utmost to be objective and accurate at the time of their writing, their work will inevitably be subject to future revisionism, good or bad. If the defeated barbarian rises up and reclaims his land from the Utopians, the previous history books will likely be collected and burned. In the new history, the Utopians will take on the role of beast and villain. The barbarians will not call themselves barbarians, but liberators and heroes of the highest social order.

Nowhere is the need for revisionism greater than in the histories of nations during periods of war. It is a truism that truth is the first casualty of war, and most subsequent histories are written by historians paid or influenced by the victors. The victor, of course, inevitably casts itself in a positive light, and the loser is often prevented from making its view of history known.

The victor's war propaganda often survives to become the historical "truth," while the propaganda of the vanquished is inevitably written off as purely lies. The real and complete truth might escape the history books for decades or more. In some cases centuries must pass before a balanced and accurate history can make an appearance, and that only if sufficient data survives to properly correct the record.

Truth, of course, is the goal of the dedicated historical scholar. But the intent of even the most careful historian is often thwarted by circumstances beyond his control. He must tread lightly in certain areas. His reputation, professional standing, and livelihood are often more contingent on accepted official views than truth.

The historian and the revisionist is only truly safe when he works on safe subjects and periods of history. For example, it is not yet completely safe for historical revisionists to speak too candidly about many aspects of the World War Two era, or even World War One—or even the Civil War, for that matter. The effects of those conflicts are still playing themselves out today, wounds are still not healed, and there are entrenched powers that still have tremendous stake in the officially accepted historical status quo.

The subject of the Jewish Holocaust is one area of interest stemming from the WWII era that is particularly touchy for the history revisionist. Any historian that questions the "official" history is automatically drawn, quartered, and branded an anti-Semite, racist, neo-nazi, bigot and then set out to skewer in a sea of searingly negative publicity. A historian or teacher who even timidly suggests that there might be another side to the story is instantly persona non-grata in respectable academic circles. Holocaust revisionism is certainly treacherous ground for revisionists at best, and an impeachable offense at worst. In some countries it is actually illegal to publicly question official holocaust history, or publish conflicting testimony or evidence.

Even today, half a century after the fact, there continues to be a strong and endless stream of literary works, movies, and commentary apparently intended not only to reinforce, but enforce, the officially accepted accounts of the this tragic period. Of course, the official version may be the true version, but one does have to wonder at the intensity of the effort to stifle debate. Open-minded inquiry and scrutiny in this particular area is definitely not yet wanted, accepted, or tolerated, in the hallowed halls of academia.

As with the Holocaust, other areas of revisionism cannot be popular at this time, even if it is good-faith revisionism. Some would cast a dark shadow on still revered historical figures, living persons, events, and sacred "causes." The living veteran, for example, would not welcome the news that he fought not for freedom and liberty, but for something else entirely—that the "great wars" might have been much like Vietnam but for the redeeming fact that we won—and that his comrades-in-arms may have died in vain for a cause they may not have suspected, such as keeping the Bank of England solvent, or some such thing. (I'm not saying this was the case, but only that things relating to the causes and goals of war are seldom as they seem.)

There is no substitute for truth. But, unfortunately, even the greatest and most just of nations frequently find occasion to suppress it, or commit willful errors of omission to make their history more appealing to a sense of pride, nationalism, and patriotism among its citizens.

A nation's history, in order to be a national history often must preserve some popular myths at least until sufficient time has passed for the public to face some unsettling truths. The nearness a nation's currently accepted history is allowed to approach the unadulterated, unbiased, truth is a function of that nation's level of civilization, justice, and the honesty of its leaders. Unfortunately there are few nations that do not have embarrassing skeletons in their national closet. So the revisionist's work must go on at all times, and in every nation, so the full truth, flattering or otherwise, can eventually come to light on all matters of importance. History is a invaluable teacher, but its lessons must be accurate to be effective and useful.

Some "good" revisionists, who are dedicated to the truth, but challenge popular myths, must labor in enforced obscurity, unappreciated, un-rewarded, and under the continuous threat of political censure and professional ostracism.

Negative revisionists are also hard at work, and perhaps more numerous than good revisionists. They often labor with official sanction and public funding and acclaim, such as the UCLA historians. (Imagine what the millions of American patriots who gave their lives for this nation in its several wars would think of the National Historical Standards? They would be incredulous, and ask, "Is that what I fought for?")

We have a class of intellectuals in this country who think that it is the essence of self-less scholarship and true historical sagacity to turn history on its ear. In their eagerness to appear "oh so fair" to those who may have suffered defeat or discrimination, they have absolutely no compunction about giving truth, balance, and accuracy short-shift—or turning against their own nation, its historically dominant race and culture, and dragging them in the mud. The people at UCLA are prime examples.

Another example of the same kind of self-deprecating revisionism was the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute, the nation's national museum in Washington. The Enola Gay was a bomber used to drop the atom bomb on Japan at the end of WW II. The text cards accompanying the exhibit tended to make the Americans out as racist villains, and the Japanese as brave and noble people.

Even if our fighting men and their leaders were racist villains, (after all, war is a hateful, murderous affair, and everybody is taught not to like the enemy) they were also as brave and noble as fighting men are capable of being. And if the Japanese were brave and noble, (and I have no doubt that they were) they were also just as racist, villainous, and savage as their opponents.

The point is that for some inexplicable reason, American scholars, and, in this case, national museum authorities, engaged in historical revisionism detrimental to their own nation. In the Smithsonian case, it was not only a disservice to their country, and a slap at their own paymasters—the American taxpayer—but literally a heartless slap in the face to the nation's living veterans. In the context of their attempt at revising history, their action certainly was not justifiable on the grounds that they were correcting the historical record. They simply went from one historical bias—that of their own country—to an opposite bias—in favor of a former enemy.

If they possessed any national pride at all, and appreciated where their salaries come from, it would seem only reasonable that they ought to be biased in favor of their own people and their own country, if they must be bias at all. But there is no need for any bias at all in a museum exhibit.

A national museum should not be a forum for political agendas, hostile to its own country. A national museum's business is not to be on the cutting edge of writing or debunking its nation's popular history. Museums should exhibit artifacts and present the simple, unclouded facts relating to them.

As might have been imagined to even the perpetrators, if they had the slightest degree of common sense about them, the Enola Gay exhibit texts met with immediate public outrage, and I understand they have since been replaced.

A nation's history is always one of its most cherished national assets. Only conquered or subjugated nations are deprived the privilege of making their recorded history reflective of a great and honorable past. Only a nation bent on national suicide—or totally corrupted by an enemy element within—would intentionally debase its own history.

Camden

THE MULTI-CULTURAL FOOT-IN-MOUTH DISEASE

Like many Americans, including the members of the Senate, I was incredulous when I read of the National Historical Standards. However, I've been aware of the trend that led to their appearance for well over twenty years, so I wasn't totally surprised. What really did surprised me was that the standards where so incredibly indiscreet, and literally certain to meet with unequivocal rejection. Letting them into the light of day was even more foolish, in my opinion, than when president Bush stood up before the American people and let the New World Order out of the closet.

Either desperation is clouding the judgment of the forces of political correctness and multi-culturalism, or those forces are falling victim to their own perverse agenda. Could it be that education has declined far enough and long enough in this country as to put absolute ignoramuses in charge of academia? If so, it is a mixed blessing.

Obviously, it is lamentable that our educational standards have dipped so low. On the other hand, with scholars like the ones who produced the National History Standards in charge of education and public relations, the New World Order isn't going to get very far. When academia shoots itself in the foot to the degree the UCLA's best did, (and with such a large caliber weapon!) there is bound to be a back-lash. Not all liberals are ignorant followers of anti-Western demagoguery. Many joined the multi-cultural alliance with nothing but the sincerest hopes of up-lifting the disadvantaged and down-trodden. While they may have wanted to take the intolerant red-neck down a notch or two, they do not purport to drag Western civilization and learning itself into oblivion. Nor will many stand for it. Maybe now they will wake up and see just what they have been supporting, and what their precious alliance has wrought.

ECONOMIC MUSINGS

What does Orange County, California and the late 233 year old Barings Bank of London have in common? Everybody knows by now that both have been bitten by the derivatives monster. Of course, they weren't the first, nor will they be the last.

For centuries world class bankers have labored to gain total control of the world money game. In the new global economy they thought they had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Utopia seemed to have arrived when the dollar, divorced from barbaric constraints of the gold standard, became the ultimate manipulative medium.

Bankers are a lot like professional card sharks. They attempt to stack the deck in their favor, so they can control the game, maintain stability of play, and be consistent winners. In order to do this safely and effectively, they must remove all of the wild cards. Bankers don't like surprises.

Could the money powers be losing control of international money game? Unthinkable? The Federal Reserve isn't the master of our monetary destiny as might be imagined. In the new global economy, an awful lot depends on what happens in the rest of the world—especially Mexico. Our NAFTA relationship with Mexico went from being a "great free-trade bonanza" to a national financial emergency in the twinkling of an eye. Federal Reserve currency, (the U.S. dollar) makes up about 60% of worlds' foreign exchange reserves. The Fed has only limited influence, and just what it's actions will accomplish are less and less predictable. This makes the dollar indefensible from its home base. The Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland is the international clearing house for central bankers. Even its control may be illusionary. Strange things are happening. Things could get out of hand—especially if the financial world is infected with a serious monetary virus.

There are new wild cards in the deck.:

(1) Huge Debt Overhangs—Bankers love debt, but the international debt situation has everybody nervous. This could lead to a severe crises of confidence.

(2) Derivatives may be the AIDS of the financial world. No telling how wide-spread it already is.

(3) Hot Money—literally trillions of dollars coursing at electronic speed through the world economy, without so much as a "by your leave" from any central banker.

(4) Cybermoney—the new computer-age, digital money of the information superhighway marketplace. Still to come "on-line". This could become the hottest and wildest card of all.

Ultimately, where is the effective control? There appears to be none. There are only dwindling influences. Expect draconian Orwellian regulatory measures as governments try to cope with threatening international financial chaos .

FLAG BURNING

Many Americans are in favor of federal legislation that would make desecration of the national flag a federal offense. Though I revere the stars and stripes, I'm against this kind of legislation. It is beneath the dignity of a great nation. A nation cannot legislate reverence, patriotism, or respect. It has to earn these things through good and wise government. When it attempts to do so, it is making a despotic, desperate, and counter-productive, statement. The flag is a symbol—a facsimile—of the nation. A great nation is not so paranoid about its symbols as to dictate that they be respected. Only a despotism is.

A government that criminalizes flag desecration is only one step away from criminalizing a host of other things, such as the burning of a facsimile of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or the Internal Revenue Code, or speaking out against the government.

Citizens, not the government, are the ones who are charged with enforcing reverence to any symbol of the nation, except under military circumstances. Local and State ordinances, or even reasonable individual or group action, are sufficient for the purpose. Let not the government stand in the way of citizens who would protect the honor of their flag—and they will—as long as it does symbolize a just government.

Federal laws are too numerous as it is. Imagine flag desecrators going to the federal pen rather than being chastised right on the site of their indiscretion by indignant citizens or the local sheriff. The problem now is that sane action on behalf of the flag is against federal law.

Return to NAAAP Perspective Home Page