America's Rotten and Corrupt Foundation

One of the ingredients of American Kool-Aid is the belief in the prescience of the Framers and the profundity of the Constitution they produced.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - I call Americans in general People of the Kool-Aid. Kool-Aid was invented in Hastings, Nebraska in 1927 and production moved to Chicago in 1931. It was sold to General Foods in 1953 and is now one of the Kraft Food brands. The cultural reference to drinking Kool-Aid refers to the Jonestown Massacre in Jonestown, Guyana where 907 people died of cyanide poisoning which had been put into a drink called Flavor Aid (not Kool Aid).

They were all members of an American cult called the Peoples Temple led by Jim Jones. It is the single largest loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster before 9/11.

Staying with this analogy, Americans have a history of “drinking Kool Aid” that goes back to the 18th century. In terms of mythology, Americans are still drinking it today. Americans who are patriotic and love their country are wilfully unaware of the corruption and political duplicity of its founding.

What follows is factual information that cannot be denied although I don’t harbor any hope that the Kool-Aid-intoxicated will be sobered up.

Who, in fact, are the people? The people that the framers of the Constitution had in their minds were “the whole Number of free Persons” which specifically excluded women and Negro slaves. Women did not get the vote for another 130 years. On this point there is no confusion. The record of the Framer’s debates is clear. The New England states wanted the Congress to have broad powers to regulate commerce. The Southern states were opposed but agreed to this for the right to continue the slave trade which was the primary source of wealth for the South. The northern states would profit from the transporting of slaves as well as of the goods and material produced by slaves.

The founding of America was compromised from the beginning. Moral principles against slavery, for those who had them, went by the wayside, with no explanation of the conflicting principles for which the American Revolutionary War had ostensibly been fought: the self evident truths "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."

Eloquent arguments against slavery at the Constitutional Convention were ignored and those who spoke out, in the final draft, acceded to a document that legalized the buying, selling and owning of other human beings. Robert Morris, governor of Pennsylvania opposed both slavery and the counting of them as three-fifths of a person for representation, but he still signed the Articles of Confederation.

The inhabitant of Georgia [or] South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a Practice.

And yet Governor Morris finally accepted the three-fifths accommodation and in fact wrote the final draft of the Constitution. America is still paying for this and other perfidies around the founding.

Thurgood Marshall, broke the Supreme Court colour barrier when he was appointed an Associate Justice by President Johnson in 1967—178 years after the Convention. The first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, was not appointed for another fourteen years—in 1981—nearly two centuries after the Convention.

As a result of compromise, the right of the southern States to continue importing slaves was extended, officially, at least until 1808. We know that it actually lasted a good deal longer, as the Framers possessed no monopoly on the ability to trade moral principles for self interest. But they nevertheless set an unfortunate example. Slaves could be imported, if the commercial interests of the North were protected. To make the compromise even more palatable, customs duties would be imposed at up to ten dollars per slave as a means of raising public revenues.

There are those who argue that the Constitutional denial of Negro rights by the Framers was an unfortunate product of the times. But writing for the Supreme Court in 1857, Chief Justice Taney wrote in the Dred Scott case:

We think [Negros] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included.... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race...; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.... [A]ccordingly, a Negro of the African race was regarded ... as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such.... [N]o one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.

One of the ingredients of American Kool-Aid is the belief in the prescience of the Framers and the profundity of the Constitution they produced. Marshall disagrees saying that he does not find:

the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. “We the People" no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty," "justice," and "equality," and who strived to better them.

In 1973 and 1974, Allan Bakke, a white student, was denied admission to the University of California Medical School because the school had a quota system to make sure discriminated against minorities were admitted. The case reached the Supreme Court and the Bakke decision, which came down in 1978, particularly incensed Marshall who wrote in dissent:

It must be remembered that during most of the past 200 years the Constitution as interpreted by this court did not prohibit the most ingenious and pervasive forms of discrimination against the Negro. Now, when a state acts to remedy the effects of that legacy of discrimination, I cannot believe that this same Constitution stands as a barrier. At every point from birth to death the impact of the past is reflected in the still disfavored position of the Negro. In light of the sorry history of discrimination and its devastating impact on the lives of Negroes, bringing the Negro into the mainstream of American life should be a state interest of the highest order. But it is not only not of the highest order, but American Kool-Aid drinkers are so concerned about their own ideological interests, that the fundamental interests of the nation as a whole take second place. Most of these citizens would give their lives as their patriotic duty in battle, but are unwilling to give up any part of their material lives if it might help society become more just. In this case I refer specifically to what has happened to the American black since the Nation’s founding. In his August 20 column, Bob Herbert writes:

”A tragic crisis of enormous magnitude is facing black boys and men in America” and gives a few horrific details.

Among the causes are a criminal justice system that many suspect is racially biased. The educational system is seen in the same dim light.

The aspect of this crisis that is probably the most important and simultaneously the most difficult to recognize is that the heroic efforts needed to alleviate it will not come from the government or the wider American society. This is a job that will require a campaign on the scale of the civil rights movement, and it will have to be initiated by the black community.

American Kool-Aid drinkers will retort that Canada’s treatment of its aboriginal people is abysmal. And it is. But at least the British in the 19th century didn’t try to wipe the natives out through genocide which is what the American government attempted. Canada has nothing remotely like the American Indian Wars with no jingoistic patriotic battles like Wounded Knee or Battle of the Little Bighorn (Custer’s last stand).

On December 19, 1890 General Nelson A. Miles sent this telegram from Rapid City to General John Schofield in Washington:

The difficult Indian problem cannot be solved permanently at this end of the line. It requires the fulfillment of Congress of the treaty obligations that the Indians were entreated and coerced into signing. They signed away a valuable portion of their reservation, and it is now occupied by white people, for which they have received nothing.

They understood that ample provision would be made for their support; instead, their supplies have been reduced, and much of the time they have been living on half and two-thirds rations. Their crops, as well as the crops of the white people, for two years have been almost total failures.

The dissatisfaction is wide spread, especially among the Sioux, while the Cheyennes have been on the verge of starvation, and were forced to commit depredations to sustain life. These facts are beyond question, and the evidence is positive and sustained by thousands of witnesses.

After the battle, on January 3, 1891 a young newspaper editor named L. Frank Baum (later author of the Wizard of Oz wrote in The Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer: The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries, we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies future safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past.

Much, if not most, of American pride is actually pseudo-pride based on unsupportable mythologies. It’s as if American history has been produced by Walt Disney as part of the Fantasyland series.

Note to commenters: Don’t bother producing a list of real and positive American history events. They did happen and I am not disputing them. It’s the historical lies and distortions that are the source of American dysfunctionality that is so harmful and destructive to Canada and the other nations on the earth.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Daniel September 5, 2010 10:33 am (Pacific time)

DJ the fact is slavery is larger today than at any time in human history . Canada has one of the worst records of the developed nations in combatting this problem . Thousands of sex slaves flow into canada each year , along with slave shop labor . Please do a story on this overlooked problem that is centered in your country . Today there are over 27 MILLION humans living as slaves world wide . It is time for Canada to step up to the plate and take real action in Canada to help solve this tragic problem . The United States has many problems but Canada needs to focus on there own before they can shout about a higher moral ground .

Hank Ruark September 5, 2010 10:09 am (Pacific time)

Natalie et al: Even "normal" Peace must surely be relativistic, as Einstein would most certainly insist... moresoon Hank

Natalie September 3, 2010 9:46 am (Pacific time)

My hopes to witness the boxing match of the century just went down the drain. I'm almost disappointed.

Hank Ruark September 3, 2010 8:56 am (Pacific time)

Friend Dan:
Somtimes a bit calmer after morning coffee !
Yours appreciated, received in spirit in which sent; have always admired your talent, and know you act in very solid good faith.
Re "flawed"-beginging, you are absolutely correct; where we differ is on HOW it could possibly be otherwise,given fact of human characteristics and tone0of-times/then.

We also differ markedly on what cometh next and how to achieve it -with moretocome dialog an inevitability, it doth appear...

But for now will continue via this channel after my trip to Springfield for surgery; OR via whatever channel from "the other side" if that doth not work out "positive" --which, if it does occur, will surely be one hell of a story, sent to YOU !!

Best wishes, friend Dan, and sincere professional regard for patience, kindness, and understandings demanded for this tottering old world...

Over-and-out...

Hank

Hank: I expect to resume "regular" communications. Best wishes for your bit of surgery. Daniel

Hank Ruark September 2, 2010 8:40 pm (Pacific time)

Dan:
See what I mean ? It is the principle of the thing here, NOT WHO or even WHY...

IF you deduce any other meaning to flat-easy English, you seek abolition-of-slavery from Founders as they wrote the Constitution...inescapable from your statement.

BUT that can't be...even one who refuses history cannot escape fact of life if they had tried, given the tenor of the time, size of the British slave trade, heavy capital investment of many Southern pioneers, and all that solid stuff known as social surround and sense of society, which always reigns at the current time --then as it doth today, too.

OR do you contend they had any possible chance so-to-act in midst of their friends and colleagues AND powerful other interests and enemies ??

IF one wishes to pundit, friend Dan, one has gotta be sure to take fully into any cogitation the current force of events surely motivating and massively manipulating whatever could possibly be accomplished --like breaking away from the Empire over the real principle of taxation without representation.

Really, friend Dan, you do need to at least skim those neglected history-pages.

Even allowing for the tenor of the times, and that what happened cannot be changed, can you acknowledge that the founding itself was flawed? Even a Civil War and 13+ amendments couldn't put Humpty together again.

Hank Ruark September 2, 2010 8:30 pm (Pacific time)

I'm "shocked - shocked !!"-- to learn that you edit, change and perhaps sometimes even delete stuff...mine not the only one, obviously !!

We all know what "shorten" means, Dan...

But friend Dan, that leaves out much of the good stuff...
so nobody knows but YOU what YOU are making sure is never seen, and thus never answered, in your partial-print of my stuff...which surely thus is shaping responses shown here.

Why NOT windupandfire, and let others do same ?

If "anon" can write and NOT be censored or selectively stated ("edited"), why not other writers with perhaps a bit more to share ?

Surely dissent can be seen and tolerated here, shy of curse-words, bad/names like hypocrite, and "insulting" references misunderstood from general knowledge --right ?

In journalism as long as you have been, I'm "shocked" that you're shocked. "Shorten" means delete. I do not change anything. One thing I learned many years ago as a journalist is: Never get into a pissing match with someone who can have the last word. Your comments are quite often filled with insults and innuendo, so I send them or those parts to bit heaven.

Hank Ruark September 2, 2010 7:52 pm (Pacific time)

Dan:
You take eight lines to my six, to tell me to write less ??!!

Principles exist whether or not those stating them make them work. We did well enough on Founders work to prevail for 250 years...once or twice just in time to save their a...es for some who take us to task at every opportunity.

I didn't save them to count them, but your "six lines" were originally about twenty.

Yes, you prevailed all right, if by "you" you mean white Americans.

Hank Ruark September 2, 2010 9:46 am (Pacific time)

Friend Dan:
You wrote:"...If slavery still existed, there were no new principles."

Words engraved indelibly in Constitution and the Bill of Rights make its strong purpose completely clear concerning the inalienable fact of rights involved as "natural right".

Their intent is unmistakable and prescient, with the source they cite the nature of Man and the inherent freedoms and liberties thus created.

What flavour Kool-Aid are you drinking Hank? In one of your last comments you wrote: "But that in no way relates to new principles so stated in Constitution ("freedom" AND "equality"), with pragmatic action demanded within that society at the time what was expected and took place."

You talk about "new" principles, yet blacks were still slaves and given no degree of freedom or equality. In other words, the Constitution looked good on paper, but not in reality. What new principles could you possibly be talking about? Unless, of course, the only principles you care about were those afforded to white males and no one else.

BTW: Your comments are routinely edited (shortened only) because you tend to run off on tangents and try to make too many points all at once. Good writing practice is: Have a point, make it, stop writing.

Douglas Benson September 1, 2010 8:02 am (Pacific time)

I know I could have looked it up but thanks for the skinny version Dan . I knew Canada [and for that matter England ]were very similar to our form of goverment . The biggest difference being our voters have the ability to legislate by vote in each state . Point is you dont have anything better.I will admit on some things your country is more advanced and we are playing catch up health care soc sec. goverment funded higher education and the like . We will catch up but lets remember change is scary to the masses and is really only done in times of crisis the "new deal"is a good example . That goes for any country . America isnt perfect what country is . Oops the Swiss. Oh yeah the country where the law demands all households be armed with military weapons . Peace

Hank Ruark August 31, 2010 1:23 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Dan:
Re Marshall-point, that is very-clear demonstration re hemi-conflict:
No question/ever re strong dollar motivation for all-then concerned, which only fully recognizes social-fact of the time.

But that in no way relates to new principles so stated in Constitution ("freedom" AND "equality"), with pragmatic action demanded within that society at the time what was expected and took place.

You're still on the Kool-Aid, Hank. "Freedom AND equality" or either--existed only for white males. If slavery still existed, there were no new principles.

BTW--the US population is 310 million, not 400 million as you regularly state.

Silence Dogood August 31, 2010 8:40 am (Pacific time)

A significant number of 'white' person colonists, including some of my ancestors, came to the colonies as indentured servants to the masters who paid their way to America. "In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away." http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/212_indenturedfeature.html

Hank Ruark August 30, 2010 2:27 pm (Pacific time)

Dan:
Re Justice Marshall on the slave-trade, "no surprise"; already familiar since parsed otherwise in refs. already sent --as practical difficulty of life-then, overcome by the Founders' pragmatic realism to found new nation based on new principles.
Re-read yrownref. to check; but that may demand background you refuse via more history...

BTW, where's replacement Constitution draft you were to provide, for comparison with Washington, Hamilton,Jefferson and Adams and Madison ?

Be delighted to do literary criticism on what you suggest we use to replace "rot" you have so belatedly discovered; then could side-by-side yours and OURS in couple national mags here, via old colleagues.
OR you can submit yourself via your own, say to ATLANTIC, or HARPERS, or TIME ? Can help you on those if needed...and can assure you they will snap up your comparison/page fast enough to unleash your hat !

Note:Colonists DID NOT start slave-trade, some fled here to escape moral decay in Empire, others outsourced here from prisons, work-houses, as dregs of society.

But that no surprise to you since you find millions of us so Revolting (that's hardly questionable point !), with "insult" to rest of world, and sure to lead to further real problems like Marshall Plan.

You wrote:"...because the research facilities don't exist up here."
Ever wonder WHY ? Ours are major reason for wide range of worldwide scientific advances with cooperation across many borders...why NOT with your people ?

Re space/program scientists, major breakthrough NOT by "captured"-ones, but by some choosing to emigrate here,with Einstein among them making the work possible with advanced theory.

Re slave-advancement since Colonial days, most families far, far ahead of what they might ever have achieved in any other circumstance, as a visit here will surely show you in depth and detail, even in Chicago, side/by/side with still-breathtaking slums...I know from living-there and work with kids from Alinsky- freed neighborhoods ? You ever been there ? OR anyplace else South of that border/wall ??

Re American Indians, you may regret query via responses by anyone knowledgeable on Brit handling of Empire aborigines, in many more instances,much earlier-on, continuing longer, and with massively more real blood-incidents, too...

So, Hank, my direct question remains: I argued (after Thurgood Marshall) the compromises around slavery and the Constitution had an economic motivation and basis. Do you agree with Marshall?

You wrote: "Founders' pragmatic realism to found new nation based on new principles." This is unadulterated nonsense. If slavery remains, there are no new principles. Further, this from Wikipedia:

"In 1772, the Somersett Case (R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett)[298] of the English Court of King's Bench ruled that slavery was unlawful in England (although not elsewhere in the British Empire). A similar case, that of Joseph Knight, took place in Scotland five years later and ruled slavery to be contrary to the law of Scotland.

"Following the work of campaigners in the United Kingdom, such as William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson, the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was passed by Parliament on 25 March 1807, coming into effect the following year. The act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. The intention was to outlaw entirely the Atlantic slave trade within the whole British Empire.

"The significance of the abolition of the British slave trade lay in the number of people hitherto sold and carried by British slave vessels. Britain shipped 2,532,300 Africans across the Atlantic, equalling 41% of the total transport of 6,132,900 individuals. This made the British empire the biggest slave-trade contributor in the world due to the magnitude of the empire. A fact that made the abolition act all the more damaging to the global trade of slaves."

But slavery was not outlawed in the US until the Thirteenth Amendment of 1865. In terms of "new principles" the Americans were more than a century behind. A lot of the history you want me to agree with is revisionist.

As I've said before, you come across like an evangelist. If I would just read the right book, I would see and be converted to THE TRUTH.

And just to correct a common misunderstanding. Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt urging development of an atomic bomb but documentation since uncovered shows that the decision to go ahead had already been made. But here's the misunderstanding. The development of nuclear weapons was completely unconnected to and independent of Einstein's two Theories of Relativity.

Kevin August 30, 2010 9:49 am (Pacific time)

Daniel I saw the same data you quoted below that you referred to as the "wit and wisdom" of the American people. For sure the public educational system has failed for a significant percentage. Some experts believe that this can be traced back to school unions and the mediocrity that they have essentially promulgated. Makes you wonder how we became so advanced technically. The world has benefited immensely from those advancements we made, and are still making. I see you often quote various American writers. I'll also bet that on a daily basis your life has been enriched by American expertise. No need to thank us, we want all people to benefit from our technical largess and our exceptionalism. We are a country where anyone can advance and improve their lives regardless of where they come from. Are you familiar with the saying in our founding documents that refer to the individual pursuit of "Life, liberty and happiness?" Does Canada have something similar? So how's the educational system there? I don't see many Canadian intellectuals referred to very often. Nor technical advancements that have benefited the world. Though is Alex Trebek considered an intellectual up there?

You say "we are a country where anyone can advance and improve themselves" Does that include African-Americans who were also "founding" peoples of America? What about native Americans who were there before Washington, Jefferson, et al? Just wondering.

You would probably be unpleasantly surprised to learn that a lot of Canadian scientists go to the US and contribute to the technical advancement because the research facilities don't exist up here. (One tenth the population, so no surprise, although some Canadians, notably at the Universities of Alberta, Toronto and British Columbia have made significant breakthroughs in cancer research over the years) . Don't break your arm, while patting yourself on the back.

But it's not just Canadians. Your space program never would have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) without the German scientists captured at the end of WW2.

Douglas Benson August 30, 2010 8:51 am (Pacific time)

How does that work Dan? I know very little about your goverment structure so correct me if Im wrong but arent your lawmakers appointed by the current lawmakers ? Can the people vote to form the law independent of the lawmakers? Didnt your country just host the G20 .They cant come here its too dangerous for them .
If the world ran on reason and intellect socialism would work just fine but it doesnt . In my observation you are an intellectual educated man . As a carpenter I deal with this problem all the time .The smart educated man says build it like this but when it comes time to put the hammer to wood it doesnt work the way they thought and adjustments must be made and sometimes it just flat out wont work . They say what do you mean it wont work and you point out why and they say gee I never thought of that oops ,what do you think we could do to make it work .Point is ,our constitution allows for change by the people [if we so choose] where most other forms of goverment dont.
Peace

Doug: We have a parliamentary system, identical to, I think, the British system. There's a lot of historical symbolism around it, like the Queen (or King) being head of state and their representative in Canada being the Governor General who "approves" or assents to certain parliamentary acts, like dissolving Parliament or calling an election. It's all symbolic and has no legal force so some Americans who falsely believe that we are controlled by the British show only their ignorance.

The leader of the country is not elected directly by the people. We have a multiparty system, like many other countries, but the two main parties are Liberals (The Grits) and Conservatives (The Tories). For the last half century or more we have had a third party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the socialist party, which has, at times, held the balance of power when neither of two main parties could get a majority in Parliament.

Voters elect a member of parliament (MP) who is usually a member of a party although occasionally individuals will run,usually unsuccessfully as "independents". There are currently 308 MPs in parliament and the party that gets a majority of seats, becomes the government and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. The current PM is Stephen Harper, a Conservative who is heading his second minority government, i.e, he doesn't have a majority of members, but he had the largest number of members.

Now about change, your question. This is from Wikipedia:

"The Canadian Cabinet last requested the Parliament of the United Kingdom to enact a constitutional amendment in 1982, in the form of the Canada Act. This legislation terminated the power of the British parliament's ability to legislate for Canada, and the authority to amend the constitution was transferred to Canadian legislative authorities. Most amendments require the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces representing a majority of the population; the unanimous consent of provincial legislative assemblies is required for certain amendments, including those affecting the sovereign, the governor general, the provincial lieutenant governors, the official status of the English and French languages, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the amending formulas themselves."

So, the people can change the Constitution by electing provincial Premiers, MPs, etc. who will vote for that change.

Hope this gives you some useful background.

Daniel Johnson August 29, 2010 11:26 pm (Pacific time)

Hank, you referred to the "wit and wisdom of the people" without substantiating your opinion. Here is some countervailing information to help you decide:

Only 40 percent of Americans believe in evolution

Twenty percent of Americans believe the sun goes around the earth, instead of the opposite

Only about half know that humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs

Only 13 percent know what a molecule is

In sum: Not a whole lot of "wit and wisdom", there. For the religious Americans (a majority) a strong case can be made for Mediocre Design.

Hank Ruark August 29, 2010 8:19 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Dan:
You wrote: "I don't believe they had to compromise. It was all about business and who was going to make money."

(1) That's only not-so-pure personal opinion, biased by misinformation, for anyone who has read any one of the six books for which I have sent you references.

(2) If well-known references refused and not- read, better to refrain from opinion which can surely be seen as "malign" when so-stated, as if proven fact.

(3) History clearly reported from primary and original sources, by professionally- trained specialists with public record of extreme preparation, substantiates each action of Founders from before Federalist Papers through the actual stages leading to the establishment of coordinated action.

(4) That Revolutionary action was acceptable to those who had to come aboard to make it work, even with the danger of "hanging either together or separately", as memorialized by canny Ben Franklin --thus proving fully understandings clearly involved for all.

(5) Without that pragmatic kind of wise, prescient cooperative study and agreement painfully reached, we'd never have had any part of the American Revolution.

(6) To so characterize Founders of one nation from safe haven elsewhere 250 years later, short of full-scale longterm de Tocqeville-type visitation and time-lived in that nation NOW, is irresponsible.

(7) Many Americans will feel that it may well become understood to be "insulting" and also even "offensive" -- surely thus denigrating the writer's credibilities for any other issue or topic here.

(8) We welcome not not only any dissent, with rational reasons-why and supporting facts in depth, but selective choice and plainly personal interpretation, distanced and deceived by geography, and concealing current manifold and very consequential full considerations, make probable major misunderstandings and even may bar continuing dialog while forcing confrontation on intent and possible use of manipulative techniques, surely worth further study.

Hank: I take as my authority Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall who said in a 1987 Bicentennial speech:

"The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce, in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade. The economic interests of the regions coalesced: New Englanders engaged in the "carrying trade" would profit from transporting slaves from Africa as well as goods produced in America by slave labor. The perpetuation of slavery ensured the primary source of wealth in the Southern States."

So, unless you want to argue that Marshall didn't know what he was talking about...

His complete speech is here: http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/speeches/constitutional_speech.htm

Hank Ruark August 29, 2010 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

"It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.": Sally Kempton = "I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology. ...It's importance has been enormously Increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda ... Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.": Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) Philosopher, educator = "The most absolute authority is that which penetrates into a man's innermost being and concerns itself no less with his will than with his actions.": Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) Political philosopher, educationist and essayist Source: The Social Contract, 1762 ==

Douglas Benson August 29, 2010 10:48 am (Pacific time)

Ok Dan you keep harping on slavery but the founders had to compromise for the good of the union .Allways a mistake that contiues to this day . The constitution is being thrown away right and left for the public intrest . Which in my opinion is the one fatal flaw . Solution? A new ballot measure with a simple directive .Any law or administrative rule that limits or abridges in any way any citizens constitutional rights will be invalid .
If the tea party is serious about our rights they could clean house with such a proposal. Can you imagine the feds trying to bring a case to stop its implementation .
This is why our system is exceptional "we the people " can change the way things are done [if we so choose]with the constitution as our guide.
Canada cant do that now can they.Peace

I don't believe they had to compromise. It was all about business and who was going to make money. The results of slavery will continue to haunt the nation and rip you apart. If you were an African-American, Doug, I don't think you'd consider me to be "harping". The blacks have been criminally mistreated in America since the start. Segregation only ended in the 1960s, but the lot of the blacks in America, as I pointed out in my article, is far worse than for any other Americans.

As for Canada--yes we can change things. A lot easier than you can.

Anonymous August 29, 2010 8:34 am (Pacific time)

Well, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make the horse drink it." It appears you are determined to apply all negatives aspects of Americana and augment those negatives, while diminishing the positive. No doubt as a remedial student of history you have heard about evaluating the past as it was during that time, taking in consideration those timely norms/mores, and not applying contemporary norms/mores to develop a more accurate appraisal, right? Nevertheless, our founding documents allowed for us to correct past wrongs and to extrapolate possible future social problems. Are these documents perferct, hell no, but with a country of at least 300 million people who are quite balkanized on many issues, we have guidelines that allow us to approach our problems in an organized way, versus a "make it up as you go" way, aka anarchy in some cases. Though the latter appears to be happening lately in D.C., and it is because they are ignoring our Constitution and the will of the people. To be corrected soon. As far as my status, that's just a meaningless distraction. In time even our most outspoken critics have come to realize the incredible power of our founding documents and the richness it has afforded the American people, and the world at large, even Canada. Of course, you will always have that "horse and water problem" for some.

I notice that you don't address the issue of slavery in the founding of America, an issue that is still not resolved.

Anonymous August 28, 2010 6:21 pm (Pacific time)

Your article's title "America's Rotten and Corrupt Foundation," is simply a gross mischaracterization Daniel. If it was accurate then slavery never would have ended, woman never would have had the vote, and a host of many other things that are now considered bad would not have been changed. That is the strength of our founding documents, it allowed us to correct wrongs, not maintain the status quo. Your premise is wrong, so what's next in your bag of "grumblings" about the greatest country that ever existed?

If the founding documents were so perfect, how did slavery become accepted over the objections of some of the saner heads? And your founding documents did not allow the nation to correct the wrong of slavery. It took a civil war, which only started the process. The blacks have been criminally mistreated from the outset. I'm assuming from your comments that you are a comfortable white man.

Hank Ruark August 28, 2010 11:55 am (Pacific time)

At some further risk, must here interject that comments surely demonstrate continuing strong belief in wit, wisdom, will of "the people" --even when at some risk of either distortion or suppression.

Seeing as you're in a psychological exploration mode, I suggest you investigate cognitive dissonance--the ability to believe something in the face of significant, even overwhelming, evidence against it. Then read Timothy Egan's column from August 25, "Building a nation of know-nothings" http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/building-a-nation-of-know-nothings/?scp=1&sq=know%20nothings&st=cse then come back, if you wish, and explain the "wit and wisdom" of the American people.

There is no doubt that some Americans have "wit and wisdom" (just like some Canadians, Brits, etc) but such people are always in a demonstrated minority, often a miniscule minority, but it is not a trait that can be applied to populations at large.

Douglas Benson August 27, 2010 9:04 am (Pacific time)

Interesting Dan .Sorry but I for one am not willing to give up my vote so the so called educated elite can decide what is best for us . That is the biggest problem we face for democracy .You want to end the wars ?Too bad we know whats best . Want to end the drug war? Same song and dance. This is why you see the voters booting the incumbents .If you put up a real third party of citizens not rich businessmen or career politicians they would start taking race after race and mabey we could get better representation.

Hank Ruark August 26, 2010 7:36 pm (Pacific time)

Dan:
Persiflage gains you little or nothing, Friend Dan...but one main point I need to clarify:
Have now produced over 600 Op Eds for S-N, averaging 1000 wds. each.
My last ones for three mags went under a contract with each mag for $600 monthly,from each of the three...
Each has been written for specific points, documented with up to 50 sources, listed and available on request.
Does that qualify on your own criteria ???

I miss any full data on your special preparation including academic and field experience stating specifics, in ou staff section..mine on record there in full detail.

Communication research makes point of "knowing your source" --and without that info we know you not, sir...

IF we gonna trade info that should count for something...

Everyone knows you're incredible, Hank. But, then, you're an American and I'm not.

Silence Dogood August 26, 2010 6:35 pm (Pacific time)

A respectful response to the author's challenge:

As regards charts and economic numbers (which are statistical) and reliance upon them to form opinion, an oft repeated phrase comes to mind: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Use of “charts and economic information” is one of many methods used by business, government, and individuals, to bolster an argument, sometimes a weak, or disjointed one.

Statistics are always suspect when used as "evidence" to prove any thesis. They are not scientific (like taking a temperature with a thermometer), and therefore being subjective data, require further analysis by some reasonable means, if possible.

Mr. Johnson writes: “In nearly eighteen months of commenting on American society, my experience has been one of denial by most commenters to the many facts I presented. I introduced charts and economic information, all of which was denied by many commenters without providing a single countervailing item.”

A countervailing argument on the infant mortality information as presented in Johnson's essay (Canada vis a vis United States), requires one consideration that “once we condition (an) argument upon infant birth weight–a significant predictor of infant health –the U.S. has equivalent infant mortality rates as Canada. In fact U.S. infant mortality is lower for low birth weight babies than Canadian infant mortality for low birth weight babies. Overall infant mortality, however, is higher in the U.S. because the incidence of babies with low birth weight is higher than in Canada. This may be due to demographic or epidemiological factors, or it may be the case that the U.S. is better at having a live birth for a low birth-weight baby.” SOURCE: http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/

The author of the blog concludes: "American are less healthy than Canadians. What this paper finds, however, is that this is mainly due to the fact that the U.S. has a higher incidence of disease. It turns out that Americans may have slightly higher access to treatment than Canadians. The paper is not the most smoothly written piece I have read, but the data is revealing. The small-ish sample size of the JCUSH mean that the results should not be taken as definative (sic)".

There are 20 comments to this story and the posters provide some interesting refutations. Jason Shafrin writes:

"Probably the most surprising discovery of the paper was that Americans partake in more preventive care than Canadians.

·                          Mammograms: 88.6% of American females 40-69 had ever had a mammogram compared to 72.3% of Canadians.

·                          PAP smear: 86.3% of American females 20-69 had a PAP smear in the last 3 years compared to 75.1% of Canadians.

·                          Prostate screening: 54.2% of American men 40-69 had ever had a PSA test compared to 16.4% of Canadians."

The first poster writes:
"
Interesting post. However your conclusions on screening don’t account for the difference in guidelines.

"Canadian guidelines only recommend mammograms staring at age 50, US – at age 40. There is a considerable controversy as to benefits vs risks of screening at 40, and American College of Family Physicians recently revised the guidelines to recommend discussing risks/benefits with patients. This is not likely to happen in the US given the enthusiasm for screening.

PSA testing hasn’t been proven to be effective in reducing mortality, and screening carries a considerable proven risk of overdiagnosis. But even though USPSTF guidelines recommend discussing pro- and con- with patients, few American doctors do it because of liability concerns. This is probably not the case in Canada.
"Pap smear funding is interesting. However, there was a study that showed that sometimes in the US the test is done on women who had hysterectomies for benign conditions. In these women test is not recommended (Against recommendation from USPSTF), yet American doctors continue to perform it.

"So until you account for these differences, you cannot make any conclusions about screening utilization in US vs Canada. Overall mortality from this cancers in US vs Canada (per population, not as a percentage from those diagnosed to account for overdiagnosis) would be more interesting."

One unfortunate thing is that Shafrin gives a link to the original paper, but the link is broken. For the interested reader, I recommend you go to the comments and check some of links the posters provide.
I conclude that the blog link supplied by Silence Dogood, does not support his case.

Anonymous August 26, 2010 10:38 am (Pacific time)

There is possibility that many Americans may believe that the question of 'throwing the baby(our Constitution) out with the bath water(slavery and racial discrimination)' was legally, though perhaps not equitably, resolved by the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Aspects of American governance (under the Constitution), still argued as exceptionally and potentially undemocratic, are: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, the electoral college system, and perpetual (until death or resignation) federal judiciary appointments.

Hank Ruark August 26, 2010 10:11 am (Pacific time)

Friend Dan:
So, even if all you state is absolute "fact"-now, details dug over seven months surely must have been done for some reason...one does not do such for free for other than very strong personal motivation.

Don't know where you get seven months from. I've been writing here since March 2009.

What's yours, sir ? OR is it even personally recognized ?
"Making world better" is hardly acceptable here to most of our commenteers, or to me.

I write to make my contribution to making the world a better place. I'm not one of those people who will only do things for money. That's a motivation you perhaps don't understand.

Somehow there has to be very strong motivation for that kind of behavior, as any basic psychologist will declare.

Both my current psychiatrists (I see them on alternating days) decline to comment on my "strong motivation" LOL

IF report is so factual, it should then surely suggest something much more pragmatic than iver/simplified and sure-failing "write ANOTHER" newer Constitution.

Another psychological rule: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. The old Constitution clearly hasn't worked and it's time to recognize that the American "experiment in democracy" has failed. America is not a shining city on a hill. See Timothy Egan, "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/building-a-nation-of-know-nothings/?ref=opinion&nl=opinion&emc=tya1)

That, from isolated writer without visitation or living experience in the U.S., surely cometh over as arrogant and assuming superiority, even at full remove above peaceful border !!

Isolated writer? Interesting you should say that when you have absolutely no idea of my writing world other than what you see at S-N.

So, friend Dan...spell away but with something much more meaningful than escapist's "illusion of alternative" as "new Constitution".
For more on this whole topic see my current Part One of three-part Op Eds, already up and ready for readers --and any commenters, always also welcome in this open, honest, democratic channel for full and checkable dialog.

FYI: I've been saying it for more than a year but top economists are now publicly recognizing that the U.S. is now in the Second Great Depression. See Terrence Aym: "The second great depression has arrived" (http://salem-news.com/articles/august262010/second-depression-ta.php)

Further: Economists are now projecting that by 2020 China will be the largest economy in the world. The U.S. will be number 2 (maybe) . So much for capitalist superiority.

Douglas Benson August 26, 2010 7:18 am (Pacific time)

Thank you Dan . First I would like to point out that your own statement that people dont vote for what is in thier best intrests . That is the very reason the constitution was formed as a restriction on both goverment and the majority .
James Madison "Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens ,equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and private liberty,that our goverments are too unstable ,that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties and that measures are too often decided ,not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party ,but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
Your argument exactly and the very principal on which these limitations of goverment were created.
I would change our constitution but I would make much stronger limitations that couldnt be made moot by regulation ect .

Considering the low quality of many elected officials in a democracy, I've often wondered if a better system might not be to have representatives chosen by lot to serve terms of two or three years. Couldn't be worse.

Hank Ruark August 25, 2010 10:04 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Dan:

You wrote:"...based on philosophical principles many of which no longer hold is unrealistic."

Would you kindly detail for us precisely which of our long-held American values, derived by our Founders from philosophers surviving the ages even unto 21st Century, are outmoded and should be discarded ? And WHY ?

The Enlightenment, also called the "Age of Reason", was primarily centred on the 18th century. The authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (among others) were all motivated by Enlightenment principles--primarily the efficacy of reason in politics. The centuries since have clearly shown that people are not inherently reasonable. This is why I do not believe in democracy, at least of the universal suffrage type. It's as bad here in Canada as it is in the U.S. but I'll give you an example close to home. You have tens of millions of Americans who will vote Republican this fall despite the fact that it is against their own best interests. Is that reasonable? I suggest it is not. These are the same people who gave GW Bush a second term, even after he had shown his true colours by giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Look at the political actions of the mass of people in any of the Western democracies and you'll see the same trends.

On democracy Ferdinand Lundberg had this to say:

“In giving them electoral democracy, history played a dirty trick on the American people, most of whom actually want and need benevolent paternalism… In getting electoral democracy, the American people had figuratively thrust upon them a political version of a Stradivarius violin. But they had not the least conception of how to play it… As an avalanche of evidence shows, people in general are not the least bit democratic at heart. True democracy, of course, can be learned; but only under carefully controlled conditions such as are rarely present in the upbringing of most children.”

See American democracy in action: "Building a nation of know-nothings" by Timothy Egan. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/building-a-nation-of-know-nothings/?hp

Natalie August 25, 2010 10:43 pm (Pacific time)

If I know my past, and that some bad stuff happened to my ancestors (or me), I analyze it in order to figure out why it happened, what were the mistakes, to say the least, and how not to repeat them again and again. Thus, my past influences my present actions for the better. If I get stuck on it, however, the situation starts resembling a primitive verse that sounds something like "I'm so poor, so unhappy, nobody loves me; I'll go to the garden, find some beautiful, colorful worms, eat them, and die to make everybody's else lives miserable, too. There should be a motivation instead: I lost my legs, but my arms and head are still attached. My ancestors were mistreated, so I'll make every effort not to mistreat anybody in my life. So far, looks like physically disadvantaged people have that passion to prove to the rest of us that it's possible to break that closed circle and get somewhere in life. Bill Cosby used to talk a lot about it, if I'm not mistaken.

Natalie August 25, 2010 9:03 pm (Pacific time)

I hate reposting. Can you dig out my response from your spam file or wherever it got stuck?

Tim King: Natalie, Daniel and I have both searched for your comment to no avail! Can you please resend? Thanks

Hank Ruark August 25, 2010 8:32 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Dan: So you have similar solid, if simplified, suggestion for your own Canada and its still- reigning Brit-connection,sir ? Interesting also to see what you might consider their own "exceptionalisms", and any reference you can make to a definitive, authoritative and accessable book on what has been accomplished by your own homeland and Britain since the original work begun so long ago in India and other parts of that now-failed Empire... Since you have lived there, rather than here in the U.S., your experience might possibly be somewhat more valuable than our intepretations from the usual secondary sources so easily available to us here. Looking forward to any real reference you may care to make re the surely significant old story re "the Empire" and its peculiar founding via potent domination of downward-slanted other countries.

Douglas Benson August 25, 2010 5:19 pm (Pacific time)

I put it to you one more time Dan .Just what part of the constitution should we get rid of .

You're asking for my opinion, so I'll offer it.

Bearing in mind that the Constitution itself is ineradicably polluted with the unspoken concept of slavery, I would suggest that the entire document be scrapped and a new constitution be drafted from scratch. To believe that a document drafted for a rural/agrarian society based on philosophical principles many of which no longer hold is unrealistic. I think the time is long past to admit that the "democratic experiment" has failed. The US is not a shining city of a hill.

But I am not optimistic about this possibility. The U.S. is so divided with red and blue states, religious fundamentalism, racial issues (Hispanics are now the largest minority, I think) economic distress for many approaching that of the 1930s and economic inequality that is about the same as it was in the 1920s. I'll repeat part of a comment from earlier: Americans believe they are one country. But when you look at the cultural differences, what do the people of Massachusetts have in common with the people of South Carolina or Florida. And those with the people of California or Oregon, or any of them with Texas. That's why there are red states and blue states and why the Congress can't be effective because too much log-rolling has to happen and nothing effective gets done.

I think the likeliest outcome is the establishment of theocratic republic. It's the way the US is leaning already.

Kevin August 25, 2010 2:50 pm (Pacific time)

America was not built on a foundation of slavery. That myth has been around for so long. It comes up every so often and then disappears for a while then pops up again. If you do a little research and break down the nation's GNP/GDP since our founding then do the cost benefit ratio of slavery (the average numbers, for it actually started to drain profits because of nonwork related costs), you might be quite shocked. Any way the world slavery trade was essentially stopped here, but unfortunately it still is happening all over the world today. What we have going on now to address are so-called sins of the past, which no one of several generations had any part of is an over-reaction that is causing a very negative blowback that is actually keeping us balkanized. For example this country is so biased we give blacks extra points to gain entry into college and qualify for civil service employment, along with many other racially-slanted perks, simply because of the color of their skin, not the "content of their character." Affirmative action has morphed into a quota system. Currently in my home town Chicago, blacks are 18% of the population but make up over 80% of U.S. Postal employees there. This reverse racial federal employment is common in many other civil service employment areas, leaving other racial groups who score higher on employment exams denied jobs because of their race. I could provide examples endlessly, but until we address the unfairness of this spoils system, and some other racial conflicts, we are just going to continue to become unable to bridge our differences. I fear that in time we will live totally seperate from each other until something very violent happens. Maybe the reverse of what happened to the French in Haiti during the 19th century. Just look at the racial crime rates of today. The black youths are acting out quite violently against whites and where did they learn to hate? That is happening in all western countries also.

Foundation. Here's what I said in the article: The record of the Framer’s debates is clear. The New England states wanted the Congress to have broad powers to regulate commerce. The Southern states were opposed but agreed to this for the right to continue the slave trade which was the primary source of wealth for the South. The northern states would profit from the transporting of slaves as well as of the goods and material produced by slaves.

Slavery was legitimized in the Constitution itself, although the terms "slave" and "slavery" were intentionally avoided.

In other words, without the compromise legitimizing slavery, there would not have been a United States in the sense that you know it today.

Natalie August 25, 2010 2:02 pm (Pacific time)

Taking notes from the past is good. It teaches. Self-pity and living in the past is addictive and can become dangerous. It can turn a perfectly healthy person with physical and mental abilities of becoming successful into a cripple, unable to move forward.

I'd appreciate it Natalie, if you would amplify your point a bit. Thanks.

Douglas Benson August 25, 2010 11:38 am (Pacific time)

Allmost forgot ,even you pointed out that not all of the framers were down with allowing slavery ,they never thought womens rights were an issue or ever would be .They I am sure never thought the constitution would be used to alllow open homosexuallity or pornography ,nude dancing , or many other things . Look how far we have come baby. If you think civil rights would have ever come about naturally you need to go back to the scott case or mabey kevins statements ,rasisim is alive and well to this day and on levels no-one will really talk about .Kevin points out beat whitey night and knock em out .I knew some white folks who play "baseball" where a group of white sup. go out at night and use baseball bats to beat the first ethnic person they see . What I am trying to say is the constitution is not the problem its people who want freedom for just us and spinless cowards who allow tyrany and greed to triumph .Peace

Hank Ruark August 25, 2010 11:14 am (Pacific time)

Friend Dan:
You wrote: "They did not believe in freedom and equality for all. Women and slaves were excluded--and slaves still a half century later in the Dred Scott case...."

ALL politics exists ONLY in the terms of its own times, as everything from Renaissance- Enlightenment clearly shows in recorded history.

Founders belief is solidly substantiated in plain-English fact of American Revolution,so recognized ever since by those trained to evaluate and report --our historians.

"Equality" here equates with equal tax/fee-payment,a prime cause of Colonial revolution, as well as then-truly also- revolutionary concept of full freedoms/rights under law for all --even though unachievable in that society, at that time.

"Dred Scott" widely now seen as step/stage in further full development of "experiment in democracy" --with other long-delayed further/steps now still underway...

Your denigrating facts can all be true, yet conclusion U.S. is evil dragon unable to return to "normalcy" may well be erroneous interpretation of very complex ongoing historic events, now driven by dramatic changes worldwide in brand-new Century 21.

The founders apparently wanted a white, English-speaking nation. If slavery could have been abolished and all the blacks shipped elsewhere, perhaps the U.S. could have become a "normal" society. But a nation built on a foundation of slavery is distorted from the start. It took a Civil War to free the slaves, but there was still segregation, a century later, well into the 1960s.

I read a Wall Street article a few years ago with a type referring to the Untied States. That, I think, is the fundamental issue. Americans believe they are one country. But when you look at the cultural differences, what do the people of Massachusetts have in common with the people of South Carolina or Florida. And those with the people of California or Oregon, or any of them with Texas. That's why there are red states and blue states and why the Congress can't be effective because too much log-rolling has to happen and nothing effective gets done.

You can't change history, but instead of a Civil War, the south should have been allowed to go and the North would have been largely free of the slavery taint and could have become a more normal country. With slavery, the south would have ripped themselves apart.

I'm not saying the U.S. is "evil" although it has done and continues to do evil things. What I am saying is that the U.S. has an evil foundation.

Douglas Benson August 25, 2010 11:13 am (Pacific time)

No koolaid here brother .As I said many of your points are spot on . So just what part of the constitution would you have us scrap? Mabey we should just scrap any legal framework of rights ,shoot who needs to vote, do we need an initiative prossess,oh heck lets just throw it all out and let the UN take over . NOT!

Anonymous August 25, 2010 7:47 am (Pacific time)

Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler was involved in an Oregon committee (appointed by then Oregon Governor) which helped form the Oregon State Police. http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/history.shtml Butler, at the time of his death in 1940, was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Butler talked of his military career: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Speaking_and_writing_career_and_anti-war_activity

Douglas Benson August 25, 2010 7:38 am (Pacific time)

First of all remember that without the constitution the progress we have seen would never have possible . Second the constitution was framed as an evolving document much to our benifit and chagrin. You pointed out allready that the framers compromised thier priciples but thier general principles of freedom and equallity for all still are the basis for the positive changes we see today . The imposition of statutory law [which was created for control of the slaves not dejure citizens ]has been our downfall for a very long time turning us all into slaves along with the goverments right to unlimited contract power in our name.
America is waking up to the class warfare we have supported for much too long ,its no longer a question of skin color allthough it still is a factor. Its rich vs poor and colored folks just happen to make up a large percentage of the poor with a healthy dose of racisim that still exists today stacked on top Kevin is a good example. Our fault no question.
That the constitution is the problem is ludicrous .
If we are to put the tyrany in this country to rest ,or at least put it on its heels we are going to have to work together .United we stand ,divided ,by religion politics,skin color ,class,ect we have very little chance of success . While we are distracted by gay marriage ,racisism ,immigration,religion ect. those in power draw the noose tighter . You say we are unwilling to give up any part of our material lives for a more just society .I say bull. For example health care .I support single payer even though that means I would give up great health care benifits for a plan that wouldnt even be close to the benifits I now have. Not to mention it would be sure to harm my and many others investments tied to my retirement . Oh screw it mabey I will just invade Canada illegal immigrant style .Peace

You missed a point. You say that "thier general principle of freedom and equality for all are still the basis for positive changes we see today", They did not believe in freedom and equality for all. Women and slaves were excluded--and slaves still a half century later in the Dred Scott case. You're still drinking the Kool-Aid Doug.

Kevin August 24, 2010 7:03 pm (Pacific time)

Possibly the writer of this article would like to see what the out of wedlock birth rate, and high school graduation rate for blacks were prior to 1964 and LBJ's Great Society, and just what the Civil Rights legislation entailed, and how the senate voted on it. Al Gore Sr. voted against all civil rights legislation as did a significant percentage of other democrats. The Republicans overwhelming voted for it and were part of the designers of that legislation. The out of wedloch birthrate was around 20% and the high school finish rate was much higher than currently. You also might look and see the trillions of dollars that were spent and the amount of money poured into helping blacks in school. For example there is only one other urban school district that receives a higher per capita student funding than Washington DC (by about $15 per year in Hartford. DC has the lowest performance test scores in all areas in the entire country. So money is not the issue. They have the black teachers they want there and one of the lowest teacher-student ratio's in the country. The black kids that get vouchers and go to private schools do much better than those in public schools. Of course where does most of this money go? The schools are crumbling, the text books are old and falling apart. School districts with far less funding are just the opposite. The fact is that all over the country blacks on average do worse than all other racial groups. Yes there are outliers, but the average is around one SD below caucasians. Of course there are criminal issues with blacks, regardless of where they live in the world. Also when factoring in socio-economics they are still higher than all other groups in regards to criminal behavior. Lately there has been an upswing in violent behavior by black youth against whites , see below, which includes a legal statute:
“Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, is the civil rights conspiracy statute, which makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same) and further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or premises of another person with intent to prevent or hinder his or her free exercise or enjoyment of such rights.
The Iowa State Fair had its share of problems with "attacks" on fair goers this year. On August 14th, after several attacks, the security was upped at the fair grounds. Over the last weekend trouble again erupted at the fair grounds where a group of 30-40 people, mostly black, were roaming the grounds and saying it was "beat whitey night". Beat Whitey Night ended up with 2 police being assaulted while trying to bring the black "youths" under control. To hear one of the officers account of the attack on himself, the audio is here (below link). Two black girls were the attackers on this policeman. One hit him from behind while he was trying to corral the one in front of him.
Was this an organized gang? No one is saying. It puts me in the mind of the "game" being played on the Burlington, Iowa streets. It's called "Point 'em out. Knock 'em out." A group of 30 or so people point out a person walking or riding a bike and 4-6 people of the group run over and beat on them. The Point 'em out, Knock 'em out game killed a Decatur, Illinois man in 2009. He was on a bike and they knocked him off. He was kicked 40-50 times in the head until he died. And while no one wants to set the racial fires burning, these groups are largely made up of black people.

The beat whitey night and point 'em out, knock 'em out activities are not something that Iowans want to see or are used to seeing. Something or someone is setting racial violence into action where none was before. Keokuk, Iowa had 5 shootings this weekend at a "disturbance" in a bar after a hip-hop contest was over and the bar was closing. No papers or TV news have said what races were involved. They were all black. When black people follow the beliefs of Shirley Sherrod, Spike Lee, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm X, Obama, Holder, Perez, and a litany of other poisonous racists, then destructive and hostile behavior like this should come as no surprise. At some point, it’s really gonna hit the fan and then all over North America and Europe there will be intense responses until all threats, in the present and into the future, have been totally eliminated. “In union, there is strength”.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5719520/beat_whitey_night_at_the_iowa_state.html?cat=17

I'm sure you know what a poison pill is in the business world. What I'm saying is that American society's treatment of blacks, beginning with the Constitution, is a poison pill in American society itself.

[Return to Top]

America's Rotten and Corrupt Foundation

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News