Letters to the Editor -- June 13, 2008


Reader: What are our options now?
Editor:

With the primary season coming to an end, we now know who the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees will be.

I cannot recall when our two major political parties have provided our nation’s voters with such “damaged goods” to choose between. Also factor in that both candidates owe their souls to the CFR, and it really won’t make much difference who becomes president — perhaps a little difference in style, but certainly not in substance. The Council on Foreign Relations calls the shot on all the really important issues.

That’s why, in his 1979 memoir, “With No Apologies,” Barry Goldwater noted, “When a new president comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy.” That’s why Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court justice (1939-1962) said, “The real rulers of Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”

That’s the way it has been and will continue to be until we are willing as a people to do what ever it takes to wrench away control of our nation’s destiny from these global one-world elitists.

So, if we don’t like what we see, what can we do about it?

Pray that John McCain politically self-destructs between now and the Republican convention.

Pray that enough Republicans now understand what Ron Paul really means to the sovereignty of our nation — Republicans who are willing to stand up in support of his nomination come September, since he still is a presidential nominee who has garnered over a million votes, in spite of everything the media and his party leaders have done to him.

Another option would be to go the third-party route, and there are two candidates who share similar views with Ron Paul that have decided to go that way. Chuck Baldwin was nominated by the Constitution Party and Bob Barr by the Libertarian Party.

Originally, third parties were an important part of our nation’s electoral process and served as a viable option to the two major parties, but problems have arisen to hinder third-party presidential efforts since then.

The problem is ballots. The quick version of the ballot problem is that the two major political parties have made it difficult for a political third party to get on the ballot of the various states, while the major parties are automatically listed on the ballot of all the states. There are no constitutional or legal reasons for these ballot access hurdles to exist for third parties other than for the purpose of limiting political competition.

I found the subject to be intriguing but too much to include in this letter. Therefore I will send information on the subject to you via another attachment. I hope that everyone takes the time to read and understand the nature of the problem, because eliminating those ballot access hurdles may be the only chance we have to peacefully gain control of our nation again. If so, it will be a state-by state process that we all need to help with.

While on the subject of processes and procedures that hinder or thwart the rights given to us under the Constitution, in this instance by our own presidents, let’s take a look at what Ron Paul has to say about that in his new book, “The Revolution — A Manifesto.” The following are excerpts from that book.

“The power of the executive branch, for instance, has expanded far beyond what the framers of the Constitution envisioned.

“One mechanism that has strengthened it is the executive order, an instrument by which presidents have exerted powers that our Constitution never intended them to have. An executive order is a command issued by the president that enjoys his authority alone, not having been passed by Congress. Executive orders can have legitimate functions.

“Presidents can carry out their consti¬tutional duties or direct their subordinates by executive order, for instance. But they can also be a source of temptation for ambi¬tious presidents (am I being redundant?), since they can always try to get away with using them as a substitute for formal legisla¬tion that they know they cannot get to pass. He can thereby circumvent the normal, constitutional legislative process.” …

“With executive orders, presidents can commit our troops to undeclared wars, destroy industries or make unprecedented social-policy changes. And they remain unaccountable because often these actions occur behind the door of the Oval Office, are distributed without notice, and then executed in stealth. This is a travesty against our constitutional system, and any president worthy of the office would absolutely forswear the use of executive orders except when he can show express constitutional or statutory authority for his action.

“Yet another abuse, though, and all the more troubling for be¬ing unknown to most Americans, involves the use of something called presidential signing statements. When the president signs a bill into law, he sometimes accompanies the signing with a statement, not necessarily read aloud at the signing ceremony but inserted into the record all the same. This practice was not un¬heard of in previous administrations, though it was nearly always employed for ceremonial purposes: to thank supporters, to point out the significance of the legislation and in pursuit of rhetorical ends of a similar kind.

“The Bush administration, on the other hand, has very often used the signing statement as a vehicle either for expressing the manner in which the president intends to interpret certain provisions of a law (his interpretation being frequently at odds with the one Congress obviously intended), or even for making clear his intention of not enforcing the provision in question at all. It is not always easy to determine whether the president has followed through on these threats, since they are so often made in areas that the White House shrouds in secrecy: foreign policy and privacy violations.

“In 2005, though, the Government Accountability Of¬fice gave us a very rough estimate of how many of these threatened refusals to enforce legislative provisions were followed up on: in about one-third of the 19 cases it examined, the provision was not being enforced. Law professor Jonathan Turley was blunt: ‘By using signing statements to this extent, the president becomes a government unto himself.’

“The Bush administration has challenged more legislative pro¬visions in this way than any other presidential administration in American history. If Bill Clinton had done this, we would still be hearing about it. Today, few Republicans in public life have been courageous or principled enough to speak out against a clear abuse of power. (Among them are Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, and former Congressman Bob Barr.)

“Again, an American president must pledge never to use the signing statement as an alternative, unconstitutional form of legislative power, and Congress and the American people should hold him to it.

”According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the states (in Article I, Section 8) and not prohibited to the states in the Con¬stitution (in Article I, Section 10) are reserved to the states or to the people. Thomas Jefferson held that this principle formed the very foundation of our Constitution. It was a guarantee that the experience Americans endured under the British would not be repeated, and that political decisions would be made by their own local legislatures rather than by a distant central government that would be much more difficult, if not impossible, for them to control.

“Jefferson’s approach to the Constitution — which he adamantly believed could be understood by the average person and was not some secret teaching that had to be divined by immortals in black robes — was refreshingly simple. If a proposed federal law was not listed among the powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, then no matter how otherwise attractive it seemed, it had to be rejected on constitutional grounds. If it were especially wise or desirable, there would be no difficulty in amending the Constitu¬tion to allow for it.

“And according to Jefferson we should always bear in mind, to the extent possible, the original intention of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution: ‘On every ques¬tion of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.’

“‘Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution,’ Jefferson advised us. ‘Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.’ Jefferson was afraid, in other words, that we would allow our government to interpret the Constitution so broadly that we may as well be governed by a blank piece of paper. The limitations the Constitution placed on the federal government had to be taken seriously if we expected to maintain a free society. “And, in truth, is that not the basis for most of our problems today — our president and some activist judges have reduced our Constitution to a blank sheet of paper — to be interpreted to suit the moment. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that to get our country back on course we must put in public office those individuals who are committed to putting the intended meaning back into our Constitution?”

Expect no help from CFR members or other elite one-world organizations, as they are quite outspoken in saying they believe our Constitution is outmoded and needs to be replaced by their form of government. Of course, they do not put that issue before the American people for a vote to see if that is what they want, they just continue their arrogant ways believing they know what is best for the rest of us. And should they get permanent control of our nation’s government we will have no vote in the future — just more arrogance, and much worse.

Allen Ide
Millsboro

Frankford resident wants wind power
Editor:

Are we being duped by Delmarva Power?

According to Walter Musial, senior engineer, National Wind Technology Center, Boulder, Colo., quoted in the June 7, 2008, issue of the Economist, while offshore wind turbines are 50 percent more expensive to build than land based turbines, they can produce up to five times as much power! This is because, while the wind blows at an average of 4 meters/second on the shore, it blows much faster only a few hundred meters offshore.

Imagine how that compares to how fast the wind blows in the Midwest. That tells me that offshore wind turbines are actually more efficient than land-based turbines, rather than less (500 percent more power for 150 percent more investment).

Moreover, the wind is free! It may cost more to build the turbines, but it will save Delaware residents a bunch of money in the long run. Wind is also clean and green.

Therefore, why is Delmarva Power (and its parent, Pepco Holdings) so “hot to trot” to import wind energy from land-based sources in the Midwest, rather than right off the coast of Delaware?

One answer is simple: offshore wind won’t travel on that huge powerline project that Pepco Holdings wants to build across Virginia and Maryland, through Delaware and into New Jersey. And, lest we forget, Delaware “ratepayers” are already paying much more now due to the miscalculations previously made by Delmarva Power.

It also might be useful to investigate who owns those onshore wind turbines. Not BlueWater Wind or another local company, that is for sure.

Between the BlueWater Wind proposal and others, Delaware could become the First State in energy independence. Think about it.

Bernard Fensterwald
Frankford

Parents offer thanks to SDSA staff
Editor:

We were honored to attend our son’s “Transition Ceremony” (eighth-grade graduation) from the Southern Delaware School of the Arts this week.

We wanted to take the time to thank all involved for their efforts in putting together such a memorable event. We know we could not name everyone that contributed, but special thanks go to the eighth-grade teachers: Ms. Corinne Mullen, Ms. Lisa McVey (who composed a wonderful slide show), Ms. Dori Camper, Ms. Heidi Driscoll and Mr. John Syphard.

The event was highlighted by the attendance of Dr. Susan Bunting and Dr. Lorianne White, and special entertainment was provided by both Steel the Show Steel Drum Band (under the direction of John Syphard) and the Show Choir (under the direction of Ms. Denise Adkins).

This marks the end of our ties with SDSA. Our daughter started at SDSA when it opened and our son has attended first- through eighth-grades at the school. This school has proven to be a great success in many ways, and we can personally account to that after seeing the guidance and attention given to our children’s education.

Thank you to all who touched our children in the past 10 years, and we hope to see many more positive things from SDSA in the future.

Thank you.

Keith and Ruth Ann Marvel
Frankford