©Ivan W. Parkins 2012,  All articles, text, web pages property of Ivan W. Parkins.  Use of any material requires permission of the

author and can be obtained by contacting, info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com

Text Box: Vol.5, Issue 21
Text Box: October 14, 2012

American Political Commentary

Veritas Veneratio Virtus

 

I. W. Parkins

Front Page

 Links to Articles and Items of Interest

· Amy Payne on “There was No Protest, Only a Terrorist Attack?”

· Erick Erickson on “Chuck Todd and the Conspiratorial Media Incest”

· Thomas Sowell on “Phony and Chief”

· Thomas Sowell on “The Fallacy of Redistribution”

· Ann Coulter on “Got Racism?”

· Rob Bluey on “Heritage Experts React to V.P. Debate”

· Nate Silver (N.Y. Times)- “538 Blog-Election Polling Forecasts”

· “Presidential Daily Tracking Poll” by Rasmussen 

· Breitbart.com– stories which are not seen in “the media”

· The Drudge Report—website by Matt Drudge

· The Heritage Foundation

Text Box:   IN THIS ISSUE– 
-Two Leaders and Their Accomplishments: 
	Mitt Romney Vs. Barack Obama
-Reprise of President Obama is Partly Correct
-Constitutional Powers, The Anointed and the People
-Mass Media’s Impact on Public Policy

  Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama

TWO LEADERS AND

 THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

By Ivan W. Parkins

 

Mitt Romney did well in coping with two very complex administrative challenges (albeit not at the highest political level).  He turned an international Olympics mess into a success.  He also served constructively as Governor of an American state that was, and is, noted for the dominance there of the Democrat Party, a challenge rarely, if ever before, met in America’s recent history.  Actually, his main experience is in economic management—something that this nation especially needs.

 

President Obama has now gained some experience in top level management, having started at the top.  He has tried to blame the facts of our present national distress on both American history and his immediate Republican predecessor.  In that he has been greatly supported by decades of intensely biased old “Mainstream” media, both journalistic and academic.  Unfortunately for Obama, but a hopeful development for America, there are newer prospects for leadership plus sources for the information that is needed to enable it to cope politically with our problems.  Unfortunately for Obama, he remains too addicted to some ideology that is both old and borrowed, i.e. less appropriate in America.

 

Our current Federal Establishment has recently become so huge, centralized, uncoordinated, and legally disparate that it is doubtful any person, real or imaginary, could make it function effectively.  Hopefully, Romney will lay the groundwork to return it to a more simple control of its key Constitutional functions, and to its intended federal form of domestic management.  As the recent small crisis in Libya demonstrates, economies in our foreign relations, sought to make possible more extensive aides to individuals domestically are neither constitutionally sound nor, if carried so far, likely to prove economically viable. It will take more than our bearing our breast to outlive the most violently irrational Muslims.

 

It is especially unfortunate that America’s first Black President has turned out to be a superficial and quasi-intellectual Black product of racial preferences, and not one of the  less theatrical individuals that are becoming available. He is a piece of our now fading old “Mainstream” media, not of traditional America.    I.W.Parkins 101212

Constitutional Powers, the Anointed, and the People

An example of progressive liberalism that usurp the will of the American people

Letter to the editor; THE DETROIT NEWS, published  6/18/95

 

     Thank you for publishing Thomas Sowell’s topical criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court.  (“High court turns 10th Amendment upside down,” May 29.)  But let me add a few points of background.

 

     First, the Constitution leaves to Congress the power to create the lower federal courts, to regulate both their jurisdictions and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to determine how many justices the Supreme Court shall have.

 

     Second, the federal judiciary’s decisions invalidating or prescribing acts of other officials on constitutional grounds have increased greatly in this century, especially since WWII.

 

      Third, prior to WWII, Supreme Court decisions holding that broad and popular acts were unconstitutional seldom prevailed.  Popular sovereignty in the form of constitutional amendments, renewed legislation, changes of court membership, etc. quickly overcame them.

 

      It is only quite recently, when some members of the judiciary became indistinguishable from the other political activists whom Sowell calls “the anointed,” that the federal courts have been able to thwart in major and lasting ways the will of the American people.  The emergence of the mass media as a potent instrument of political influence and the alignment of most of the media establishment with “anointed” members of the judiciary is, I believe, the best explanation of the change.

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS

PARTLY CORRECT?

 

A historical condensed overview of the

last 50 plus years of Democrat and Republican Presidencies

from an article published in 2010

 

By Ivan W. Parkins

The Presidency that Obama won was/is that of a national political system in terrible condition, its citizens depressed in both spirit and many aspects of substance.  But, Obama is wrong historically, even if not as a political tactician.  Americans have long adjusted their political thought too closely to recent mass media accounts and too little to larger but less obvious historical trends.  Little of President Obama's problem results from the work of his, predecessor, President George W. Bush.  One key to our present problems occurred, but passed almost unnoticed, before Obama was born.

 

Prior to 1956, every American President who had just won the office with a majority of the popular vote got also, a Congress in which his own party held the majority of seats in both Houses.  It is highly probable that that fact contributed to more moderate levels of partisan conflict and it is even more likely that it contributed to better comprehension of which party was responsible for successes or failures.  Eisenhower’s personal popularity and lack of an active partisan history helped to obscure what was really a fundamental change in how parties had functioned during most of our history…….

 

…...

Subsequently, Democrat Jimmy Carter won the Presidency with a popular majority of 50.1%.  With that he got a Democrat majority of 149 votes in the House.  Those 149 majority House votes happen to be just about twice as many as all the Republican House majorities enjoyed by the five Republican Presidents elected since Herbert Hoover.  And, three of those Republican Presidents won their own reelections by landslides of 57% to 60.1%.

 

Spending, budgets, and their balancing are now an issue--with most Democrats and many who are not Democrats trying to place equal blame on the parties.  By terms of the Constitution tax proposals must originate in the House of Representatives; early in the twentieth century budgeting was centralized in the Executive Branch; soon after driving Nixon out the Democrats claimed more budgeting functions for Congress.  Should we really believe that Democrat Presidents, working mainly with large majorities of their own party in Congress, and Republican Presidents, who have been forced to operate mainly with large majorities of their opponents in Congress, are likely to have been equally responsible for our budgets and their usual imbalance?

 

President Clinton, the only recent Democrat President who has faced a Republican majority, a slim one, in Congress is sometimes credited with four balanced budgets.  They all occurred after Newt Gingrich and his Republicans had gained a narrow majority in the House.  In fifty years, the Republican have been responsible for 80% of all our balanced federal budgets.  Source Statistical Abstract

 

THE MASS MEDIA’S

IMPACT ON PUBLIC

POLICY

Letter to the Editor;

 U.S. NEWS and World Report

Unpublished 7/29/97

 

     The late Justice William Brennan’s attitudes (obituary, August 4) regarding fairness were similar to those which I expressed in my major piece of campaign literature, 1954, while seeking (unsuccessfully) a Democratic nomination to Congress. . . .

 

      Among the greatest of his innovations was establishing welfare as entitlement, a constitutional right.  In his GOLDBERG V. KELLY opinion, 1970, the key case, he acknowledged a debt to Professor Charles Reich of Yale Law.  Reich had argued, in review articles, for such a right to welfare benefits.  Reich is better known, however, for his GREENING OF AMERICA, also in 1970, a text of the youth rebellion, and one in which he acknowledges his debts, not to our founders and political history, but to Karl Marx, Professor Marcuse, and some writers of contemporary fiction.  Justice Brennan was a man of his time; it is less clear that he saw the value of continuity with the past, a basic principal of constitutionalism.

 

      What may be least understood by most Americans about Brennan’s judicial activism is its unique record of survival.  As Professor Robert Dahl of Yale (political science) discovered, nearly all major judicial conflicts with the legislative and executive branches prior to Brennan’s time were soon resolved in favor of the elective branches.  Only more recently has the U.S. Supreme Court made numerous broad and lasting decisions which became the policies of our government. Why; why now?

 

       The answer, I believe, lies in the development and influence of the mass media, especially television.  Alexander Hamilton’s famous prediction that the judiciary would always remain the weakest branch of our government, because it controlled neither the purse nor the sword, is invalid.  The media have become a major, if not the greatest, instrument of raw power.  During most of his long tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Brennan was in step with the media.