.

                     


Purposes & Background 2014-17
 

 
 
                           Significance           Mea Culpa           Watch Your Language                USANN                 Minds Only Alert
 
                                                               Voting
 
 


 
+≠&
 
 

We realize your time is valuable and respect you enough to, within reason, try to give you an idea of how long this might take.  Please keep in mind that this has not been provided as a 60-second TV spot, let alone as a sound-bite.  A reading speed of 200 wpm has this "Purpose", including the Addendum [not including all the linked material and "boilerplate"], done in about 30 minutes, a whole lot less time than hunting through and trying to organize the ideas from all of our “issues/essays” and the years of daily blog entries from which much of the material was gleaned.


 
+≠&
 
 

 

Purpose/Bkgrd 2014-17
 
 

Our purposes with this site are personal as well as public, the public encompassing both professional and societal; we don’t know exactly how to separate them.  The business “Mission Statement” is:

Successfully market, through Writing and taking the mundane steps to successfully publishing

well written books and other commentary of socio-economic-political reform,

          constructed through Skill with the dialect of English generally used in the United States of America, intellect, passion for values reflected in the political bent, and sheer mean,

          through which the public at large can increase its social currency  -- responsibility on one side and Freedom on the other --  and provide a reasonable return for value received.

 

 

The primary focus of +≠& at this juncture, and for the foreseeable future, is the adoption, passage, and ratification  -- preferably before the election scheduled for 2014 --  of "Hierarchy of Law" and the proposal in "Fiscal Responsibility" as the 28th and 29th Amendments to The United States Constitution.  We prefer this be accomplished with little to no money  -- perhaps as little as a few thousand, even just a few hundred, dollars total throughout the nation --  and with relatively little time and/or energy from most, perhaps just an hour or two [beyond reading time; more on that later].

Each of these proposals is, as we see things, extremely important in and of itself, and even highly of moment.  The first, "Hierarchy of Law", is designed to clarify the structure and weighting of the components of The Supreme Law of The Land, something which probably seemed unnecessary to The Founders when they put The Constitution together.  But with the course of well over 200 years, through changes of time and in culture, along with intentional mischief of the misguided, clarification now seems needed. This proposed remedy is short, simple, straightforward, and offers little opportunity for opposition, yet would end questions of Sovereignty that come up with every Treaty and international agreement [seen as treaties  -- and enforceable as such --  on the international stage even if not ratified in accord with our Constitution].  The UN in particular has been increasingly mischievous in recent years, with a number of treaties, "conventions", and other forms, including a most ingenuous effort to negate the Second Amendment and, arguably, the entire Constitution by doing so.  [A conference on a "Programme" carrying virtually the same features as a Treaty that had not been well-received in The Senate just a month or so earlier, was held in NYC while people were largely focused on a hurricane and political conventions for 2012: it would not even need to be seen in The Senate to take effect.]  The UN is even making an effort to impose a 1% “wealth” tax on people around the world as it might choose, no doubt with exemptions for "poor" countries, so you can guess who would be paying that…along with the roughly 25% of assigned costs for that organization of some 190 member-states comprising virtually everybody on the planet already coming out of the roughly 4% of the worlds’ population that resides in the US: the US taxpayers will take it in the neck again.  Unless, of course, we take measures to ensure that our Sovereignty remains intact. Consider, please, that the UN position on the invasion of the USA from Central America by way of Mexico, has been to suggest, even to the point of a "declaration”, that the invaders were/are “refugees”, necessitating  -- by UN standards, not necessarily adhered to by the USA --  a number of deferential treatments and expenses to the USA.  The “Hierarchy of Law” proposal secures our Sovereignty and more, in fewer than 300 words.

 

The second proposal deals with the fiscal situation of the federal government, which has rarely left headlines for any length of time in many years, notably in the entirety of the current administration…which, while raising the debt ceiling repeatedly and experiencing the first and only credit downgrade in U.S. history [with another now looming?  And apparently an abandonment of the US dollar as the worlds’ reserve currency?] didn’t manage to complete even a single annual budget in five years.  In fact, the process has become so inane that a pretense of solution has been suggested, and now even used: budgets that cover two years.  Brings to mind "too big to fail" which, from1perspective, is evidence of need to fail.  There is a fly in that ointment, though: national bankruptcy of the worlds’ superpower  -- well, what has long been a major economic power (we may be headed for an economy akin to the Wiemar Republic) suggests bankruptcy for many if not most of the governments of the world [since we support so many of them directly and/or indirectly], and that almost assuredly spells worldwide depression the likes of which hasn’t been seen since at least The Great Depression (and perhaps since well before that).  [Some people are saying national bankruptcy for this country is unavoidable: we may be naive, but we prefer to think there is another way out of this mess, much of which can be found in (and through) "Fiscal Responsibility".]

The collapse that seems to be waiting in the wings could arrive in as little as a week, or continue to hang out there for several months, or even longer (though we think not) unless we pull off what most see as impossible…but then, we do not see it as impossible.  Most people see the proverbial glass and describe it as "half-full" or "half-empty"; we do not see things that way.  We see "impossible" as the term applied to things not yet proven possible [many things now taken for granted were seen as "impossible" not so very long ago]; we see the proverbial glass as half-full of one substance (as a liquid) and the other half as also full, but of one or more substances in another state (as gas).

To pull off this “miracle” will, however, necessarily involve a very large number of people (perhaps tens of millions); fortunately, success may be available through (very) limited participation by each.  The bad news is that time is so short: the good news is that because of the economic and international situations, with the advent of social media and widespread use of the internet and the like, and with the proximity to the [scheduled] election, most people would [we believe], if exposed to the arguments provided surrounding the proposals, likely be inclined to support, at least to not object.  This can be done.

All it takes  -- but it may well take every bit of this --  is for each person contacted to do the readings and then follow through with making 5 initial contacts to other individuals, each morning and each evening for less than a week [not so great a commitment, considering what is at stake], in person or by phone or email or carrier pigeon or whatever, to have those others also visit the site and similarly do the readings and make contact efforts.  In less than one week, essentially everybody in the country would have been contacted…repeatedly.
 

[If our arithmetic is correct:

1 contacts 5 in a morning, each of the then 6 contact 5 that evening, making for 36 people making contacts on the second morning: the 36 contact an additional 180, making for 216 to contact 5 each on the second evening.  That brings the total making contacts on the third morning to 1296, bringing another 6480 who that evening bring the total active to 7776 and total contacted to 46,656.  End of day 4 has an aggregate total of something more than 8 million, and we run out of people for initial contacts early on in the morning of day 6.  Going on at the same rate and no longer concerning ourselves with contacts being initial, day 6 ends with over 2 billion total contacts made, something like 10 or more for every eligible voter in the country.

Obviously, some people will certainly contact fewer individuals, and quite possibly, a relative few might contact more (more, earlier in the process, makes the result just that much stronger: like compound interest in an IRA or the like.]

 

The time needed might be even less than an hour (over and above reading time).  Our best guess for reading times has to be a range due to reading speeds and comprehension abilities.  Some people may read at 250 wpm or even faster, while others may read at more like 150 wpm, thus having one taking 2/3 more time to read exactly the same material.  Some people may be able to and comfortable with minimal reading, perhaps this piece and the proposals alone; others may read this piece, the essays containing the proposals [“Hierarchy of Law” and “Fiscal Responsibility”], the related "Debt Ceiling" and "1% Aspect" and perhaps even more on this site and still more off-site.  Thus, our best guess has to be from less than an hour to as much as several hours, depending on how much support material (including in the blog here) one chooses to examine.  Time for making contacts  -- [theoretically/typically] 5 at a time and twice a day for less than a week --  can also vary.  Let’s face it, though: once a general email has been written, it doesn’t take but a few moments to send it out to a number of individuals even if it is modified/personalized for each recipient [finding recipients might take longer: we have help from the blog entry for September 2, 2012, placed as an addendum at the end of this piece (and no, this is not a scam to drum up clients for a mailing list business)].  So if you came in "on the ground floor" and were relied on for 10 or 11 “generations”, it might well take less than an hour’s time.  On the other hand, if you decided to become a major advocate, and made twice the suggested number of contacts, it would still be a very limited commitment of time.  If you took a couple of people to lunch [like an inexpensive burger, not the 3-martini at The Ritz variety] to kick the ideas around, it could cost a few dollars as well as the time, but it would probably be difficult to spend anything like a hundred dollars doing such things over the course of less than a week.  And if you went to a number of candidate townhalls, having made a few copies of contracts, it would still be difficult to go over a couple of hundred dollars including gas (at $4 a gallon...and you were going to eat anyway, weren't you?).

In the process, it can be surmised that a few politicians [and/or celebrities] might get behind  -- or take extreme exception to --  either or both of the proposals, ensuring each proposal, and the movement to advance each, took on life of its own.

We would certainly be using a great deal of bandwidth as we got into even the third day, and we hope we can keep up with the expense.  It might help if at least a few people would appreciate what we’ve done and are doing to an extent they felt it appropriate [basing on individual benefit from the site] to leave something in the tip jar.  [The eventual objective of this site is as a part of a [lucrative?] business in the not-so distant future by offering our goods for sale; but we are more concerned with continuity of the country right now than with our own financial statements.]

Once word is out, candidates for The House and The Senate can be prevailed upon, publicly, in townhalls and the like, to "do the right thing". But that takes people who will take most seriously their responsibility to wield the vote judiciously.  hese would be legally binding contracts, rather than something like the "no tax increase" pledge that has become de rigueur for Republicans [to little betterment for anybody, save perhaps keeping the guy most involved in that “pledge” in the public eye (and apparently making pretty good money in the process)]: contracts stipulating an automatic resignation from office [if elected] and more should the individual fail to actively support the given issue.  It is to be expected that some candidates would initially decline to sign or even discuss, on the premise that they’d not seen the proposals or the contracts or both and would then, reasonably, not sign on and could hardly have a detailed explanation beyond that as to why they would decline.  However, those same candidates would have increasingly greater difficulty making such noises in subsequent meetings, leading to consequences in the election.  That is part of why we believe it important to try to do this before the election (there are other reasons as well, particularly a variety of factors that are coming to critical mass, some well before the scheduled election); once elected (or defeated), candidates lose much of their incentive to either sign on or explain why not…at least until a similar point in the next cycle.  Please note that we provide for the option of not signing.  We believe in Freedom, including the Freedom even of candidates to be wrong [J].  This is about knowing who is running, too, not just about these particular proposals. [There is a lot more work to be done to "right the ship"; but every journey does begin with a first step…and can only continue by taking the next step in turn.]

The argument will surely surface that with members of Congress on recess [soon], mostly trying to get re-hired for jobs that they have largely demonstrated that they either cannot or will not do, little can be done to bring these measures to completion.  But that argument leaves out one little detail: there is little that can be done conveniently.  Congress could go back into session, inconveniently; there is nothing  -- at least that we know of --  prohibiting Congress going into session, to deal with just these matters…save, perhaps, as with providing balanced budgets [on time] without such measures, a lack of political will.  Again, keying to the personal motivation [aka, enlightened self-interest, as is done in "Fiscal Responsibility"; in this instance, the desire to be elected] can generate the political will.

Congress could go into session, introduce the measures, discuss them (briefly: we believe that most of that work has already been done for them, available here on the site), and even hold a vote, only to have them fail to meet the 2/3 majorities needed in each chamber.  We think it would be important to know that, and just who voted which way, before the election.  The same is true regarding state legislatures and ratification votes, once the measures get the requisite majorities: the legislatures could be called into session, votes taken…and it would likely be helpful to voters to know just how which state legislators voted on the questions, before the election.

Of course, quick success is a longshot [and could bring very longshot returns].  Even getting a good deal of attention, including contracts signed by candidates, is far short of the goal.  We urge speed  -- the twice-a-day contacting sessions, for just under a week --  because it could bring far greater returns if successful very quickly than if it takes another year or two [as, into the next election cycle...provided the ship can stay afloat that long; a growing concern].

Building on the success of a grass-roots effort bringing these needed adjustments [actually more like clarifications] to The Constitution could impact election results up and down the ticket, even to local measures.  More importantly, success in amending The Constitution  -- and in some ways the actual verbiage of the proposals becomes almost secondary here --  could also free up economic engines and cure the "Crisis of Confidence" that has been a real damper on the economy for years [to the extent that unemployment is down a bit from its peak but more as a result of people “dropping out” of the workforce than as a result of greater employment], and which has a recent poll showing nearly six in ten people believing Obama(?) is incapable of properly handling the duties of President, particularly in foreign affairs.  "Hope" would not be the desperate clutching it seems to have become, so much as an all but unstoppable optimism.  If the people of this country could pull this off, with so little likelihood by "conventional wisdom", then what could possibly stop such individuals?  We could do anything, and just very well might [we can, and have demonstrated it time and again in our history; but we seem to have lost contact with that part of our national character…and we need to reassert it, just as we need to reassert the Power of the electorate].
 

There’s the basic plan.  Simple enough.  Not easy.  But simple.  To make it a little easier, we even offer a sample "boilerplate" for email contacts.  In an email specifically for the purpose, or even modified and tucked into an email with some other primary purpose:

I know politics can be the third rail for friendships, so I approach this with a bit of hesitation even as close as we are.  I don’t want to risk our friendship yet find that if I don’t bring this to your attention I may be risking that friendship (and more) anyway, so I draw your attention to usann.us.

It is, as already suggested, political.  Fortunately, it’s up-front about that, making no bones about leaning to the right even as it claims it is more interested in doing what’s right than in being in line with "the political right".  Better news is the relatively non-partisan presentation and the fact that there’s no junk -- no pop-ups, no ads, no membership, no registration, nothing for sale [at this writing, though the option has been left open for later], and no email.

But the best part of it is that despite my bringing it to your attention, we don’t have to discuss this at all [we can; but we certainly don’t have to] let alone get hyper about it, pro or con: we can simply leave it at my having asked you consider visiting that site and reading a little, probably the blog for the last week or two and the proposals being encouraged.  That’s about it.

I ask because I care about a lot of things, including my friends. Happily having you in that group, I felt it would be wrong of me to not pass along word about the things on that site just as it would be wrong of me to not let you know about a really good deal on something I knew you were looking for; if it worked out to your advantage, terrific, and if not, well, our relationship would probably be a lot better off than if I didn’t tell you about such a deal and you then missed a great opportunity.

Hey, are we still on for BBQ next Saturday?
 

No, we don’t really expect this to fit well for very many specific situations.  It does, however, demonstrate that the connection can be short, considerate, and encouraging, without having to get into specifics that could be problematic for the relationship, let alone anything anybody can [mis]interpret as bluster or worse.

Now, consider your own boilerplate, modify as appropriate, and make a few contacts.  Or do you think that it is a good idea to allow Treaties  -- and even other agreements that never go through ratification yet could carry as much weight -- to have the potential to trump the guarantees of your Constitution or even the entire Constitution itself?  Do you believe that the federal government is doing a good job of fiscal stewardship?

 

Having largely answered why these proposals, in this order, by this means, and even what it will take of people who get involved, it seems appropriate to address the other side: what will it cost to not do this?

First, there is the cost of not having the proposals in place to deal with further attempted incursions on Sovereignty, and additional mishandling of the fiscal duties of assorted government employees, particularly legislators.  And there is the cost of delay.  Delay is a funny "stuff", but it has value: ask an accountant about "the time-value of money": ask anybody who’s had to wait on a check that they had coming and needed to then pay their own bills.  And, perhaps finally, there is a personal cost, and not “just” in lost Freedom or dollars you won’t have for this or for that: how will you look your children and grandchildren in the eye and explain to them your lack of participation in what might have prevented the end of The Great Experiment that came on your watch, as it very likely will?  How will you tell them of Freedom and Prosperity, that will then perhaps forever be beyond their reach, understood only as fairy tales from the elders?
 
 

Now: can you reasonably forego what amounts to a raise of an after-tax $125 a month?  On the premise that taking one option precludes the taking of another, not doing this could essentially literally cost you such a raise.  In any discussion of cost, one has to consider also the return.  Be honest: if you could be sure that by putting $5 into a particular project today [No, we are not asking you to send us $5: we are not in a position to turn it down (and frankly hope and have endeavored to ensure that you have derived considerably more value from our efforts), but right now we are simply using a figure as an example, something relevant to making an investment (probably more of time than money)], you were assured of getting back just $1  -- but getting it every day for the rest of your life --  wouldn’t you be looking for a way to put in as much as you possibly could for a similar rate of return?  Surely the benefits of The Constitution [certainly if it was adhered to] are worth $1 a day to you, are they not? [If you think otherwise, please consider: what part of the Constitution would you be willing to give up, for $1 a day?]  In this case, you probably couldn’t draw much of a direct line to a dollar return for dollars put in, but indirectly, you might actually do quite well, through the second proposal, in two ways.  First, gaining fiscal responsibility in government would, over time, pay down substantially if not entirely, the current national debt…which is costing taxpayers something like ¼ Trillion dollars a year in interest, at remarkably and artificially low rates: something in the neighborhood of $750 a year per person.  Second, all monies borrowed by government are monies not available to be lent to other potential borrowers, individuals and businesses.  The law of supply and demand applies to interest rates just as it does to most everything else, so the less money borrowed by government(s)  -- all things else being equal --  the lower interest rates would be on business loans, mortgages, and even credit cards [student loans, anyone?].  Over time, that could add up to a considerable amount, perhaps as much or more than the amount now going out on interest on the national debt.  If those guesses bear any relationship to reality, that could amount to the equivalent of every individual in the country getting a permanent $125 a month, after-tax, raise…not including the compounding effect of lower prices due to lower costs for business. Talk about a stimulus package!
 

On that basis, aside from "patriotic" and/or "philosophically moral and ethical" motivations, couldn’t you stand that kind of an increase in your purchasing power?  Seems, from1perspective, to be a pretty good return for a few hours of effort and maybe  -- and only a maybe, and that entirely at your own control --  a few dollars, over the course of a week, a few weeks, perhaps months.  And that doesn’t even touch on the tremendous strengthening of our own society/government on the stage of international relations (the Middle East, Mexico and Central America, as a couple of high spots).
 


 
+≠&
 
 

 

Useful READS: read more, or less, maybe just parts as indicated above, perhaps include additional stuff from other sources. In order of our estimation of import:

Purpose                                     30 minutes

Hierarchy of Law                     12.5 minutes

Fiscal Responsibility             52.5 minutes   N/A

Debt Ceiling                             44 minutes   N/A

1% Aspect                                 31 minutes    N/A

Total of about 2 hours and 50 minutes, at 200 words a minute [figure on 3 hours].
 

 
 

Addendum: Who to Contact: 
 

Those starting earliest to make contacts may literally run out of people they can readily think of to contact about this effort to Restore The Great Experiment, through “Hierarchy of Law" and "Fiscal Responsibility", and fairly early on  -- which is when contacts are most needed; a bulge early on will make it easier to pull this off --  so we thought to offer some possible areas in which possibles can be found.

While personal contacts can be best, they can also be most difficult.  But contacts need not be limited to people one typically has personal contact with every day, or week, or even month; they can literally be people never before known in any way shape or form, since these proposals each deal with very basic yet major aspects of our lives.  Certainly one has family and friends … and colleagues? What about professional contacts such as doctors and lawyers … and their office staffs?  What about the cashier at the grocery or the drug store?  How about a brief cheery word in passing going into or coming out of a big box store … or a bank?

Folk with their own business can, if done with a very light touch, ensure employees become aware of the existence of this effort (and site) [but only with a very light touch, which should be fairly easy to pull off because this site has no particular connections to any other businesses and no "partners" and has nothing for sale and collects no personal information (which the owner doesn’t want in the first place)].

Social networking existed before the new technologies that make it easier and faster and more extensive  -- are you active on FaceBook? Can you "Tweet"? --  so you can invite people to explore this site/effort when socializing before and/or after church, at a fraternal organization such as Elks or Moose, service organizations such as DAV and VFW and American Legion: just please remember that this is not associated with any such outfit nor is it suggested that such groups take any stand  -- pro or con --  regarding it [though it might actually be a disservice to not spread word of the existence of site and effort], since this is focused on individuals.  Sending of emails is quick and easy, particularly once you’ve written a "boilerplate" message [just no spamming, please].

What about calling a local talk show, or even one with a national audience?  A TV or radio personality, commentator, anchor?  Politicians?  TEA Party, anyone?  What about high school civics and history teachers, and college history and political science instructors?  Letters to editors of newspapers and magazines, both print and online editions?  There are, we think, a few hundred billionaires in this country, and while it could take a bit of doing to find them and contacting them might be difficult [getting to their organization(s) and asking that a message be passed along might work]…and ultimately rewarding, those folk might be able to wield some real strength in such a process [and they have the most to lose personally in a surrender of sovereignty, or a destruction of our economic strength].  There are  -- or were (and can certainly be again) --  some millions of millionaires, too.

Look, a first contact will be enough for many; for others, it may not be particularly productive. It may; but it may not.  But the fourth or fifth time somebody hears about this, the more likely they are to at least consider a visit, a little time to read.  And we’ve already run some numbers in earlier entries in our blog: in the eleventh generation of contacts  -- one individual contacts 5, then each of those 5 along with the first contact 5 in a second "generation" --  the actual total number of contacts exceeds the number of people in the country.  Well, [if our arithmetic is correct] a 12th generation would offer more contacts in that generation alone, than there are people in the country.  So generating contacts, in a matter of a few minutes taken twice a day, gets to that level in less than a week: and on the 7th day we might rest.

Time to go to it, folks.  Let’s make this happen.
 

 


 
 ============================================================================

.


The
(general) PLAN                                         
                                                                                                                                 
        
    Exercise integrity, and encourage others to do so: Support each other, and encourage others to do so;
    Educate ourselves, and encourage others to do so; Use the term Usann, and encourage others to do so;
    Resist tyranny, and encourage others to do so; Exercise authority over officials, and encourage others to do so;

And take the country back, one day, one moment, at a time.
  

Our goal is to follow the above plan in our lives and our business, thus being a part of returning our country, The United States of America, to the Republic it was envisioned and designed to be and The Great Experiment  -- the Rule of Law  --  brought to the world by the Founding Fathers.

We ask readers  -- and others --  consider doing likewise.

                            


Taking no ads, the only revenue to keep this site going is out of our own pockets and should arguably
be going to other things, from the few items sometimes in our store, and whatever
donations might be put in the tip jar on our Comment/Support page.


To the extent that you think reasonable

-- and please think for a moment about how long it would take you to put something like this together,
and what it would cost you, in energy and money, to then make it and keep it available on the web --

we ask you consider contributing to our delinquency.