CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE U.S. FIGHTING MAN

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE U. S. FIGHTING MAN

1. I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
2. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.
3. If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
4. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information, or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
5. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am bound to give only name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
6. I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

NOTE:
American soldiers do not abide today by this Code of Conduct and at one time were subject to a trial by Courts Martial for violations of it. January 26, 2016 EN

Code of Conduct

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE U. S. FIGHTING MAN
1. I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

2. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.

3. If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

4. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information, or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

5. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am bound to give only name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

6. I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

SOO politically incorrect! This is the Code of Conduct circa 1953.

I am an American Fighting Man 1-15-16

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE U. S. FIGHTING MAN

1. I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

2. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.

3. If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

4. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information, or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

5. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am bound to give only name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

6. I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

So politically incorrect! This is the Code of Conduct circa 1953.

TVA -Is it really constitutional?

March 3, 2013 by Ernest Norsworthy

TVA – is it really constitutional?

March 3, 2013

If ever the Supreme Court looks again at the TVA Act of 1933, it will see how wrong their decision was in approving the existence of TVA. The Court never ruled on the key issue under which TVA now operates. Since TVA is a government competitor in in a free market economy, it flies in the face of the essence of our Constitution.

Ruling narrowly on a contract issue and never reaching the core point, the Court succumbed to the will of FDR and went along with this New Deal program although many others were later ruled unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice McReynolds’ dissent in Ashwander vs TVA rings as clear today as it did in its ominous warning from the past.

He spoke plainly when he accused TVA for dissembling and pretending one thing but claiming another. Ironically, that trend found throughout TVA’s sullied existence, belies many of TVA’s motives.

The trial court ruled TVA unconstitutional and on appeal to the circuit court, ruled in its favor. The Supreme Court had to decide one way or the other whether TVA was legally granted the authority to pursue the purchase of utilities of the Commonwealth & Southern Corporation’s subsidiaries in Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia.

In McReynolds’ dissent he proffered;

The trial court made findings of fact which fill more than sixty printed pages. They are not controverted, and, for present purposes, are accepted; upon them the cause stands for decision. Plainly they indicate, and that court, in effect, declared, the contract of January 4th was a deliberate step into a forbidden field, taken with definite purpose to continue the trespass.

Further,

The record leaves no room for reasonable doubt that the primary purpose was to put the Federal Government into the business of distributing and selling electric power throughout certain large districts, to expel the power companies which had long serviced them, and to control the market therein. A government instrumentality had entered upon a pretentious scheme to provide a “yardstick” of the fairness of rates charged by private owners, and to attain “no less a goal than the electrification of America.”

And TVA said,

When we carry this program into every town and city and village, and every farm throughout the country, we will have written the greatest chapter in the economic, industrial and social development of America.

To read the entire dissent of Justice McReynolds and the ruling by the Court, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0297_0288_ZX.html

Why his dissenting vote to affirm the TVA law is haunting today is that he was so correct in his opinion some 78 years later. His perception that it was just a ruse by TVA to do just what it has done to the detriment of millions of citizen in the Tennessee River Valley makes his dissent even more poignant.

Justice McReynolds opined then and it is even more critical today to acknowledge that the breach between a competitive, free market economy and an ever-growing government dependent culture is at its widest.

Even a quick perusal of the TVA Act will show how misdirected TVA has become, how mismanagement has led ratepayers to a $30 billion debt. To claim that TVA is “self-supporting” is ludicrous and was not even considered in the original TVA Act. Early on, TVA used its power to force “competing” utilities out of business because of TVA’s low and subsidized electricity rates.

Is the TVA Act unconstitutional? It has been unconstitutional from the very start.

Ernest Norsworthy

Concept of turning TVA into a private utility

Concept of turning TVA into a private utility – Part 3

December 13, 2015

 

Shocking as it may seem, I think it is feasible to turn TVA into a private utility quickly. To be sure we are not confusing the two separate entities; let’s call the new corporation “Valley Energy” or VE for short. (This can be changed later.) The administration has stated that when federal agencies like TVA lose their usefulness, they should be abolished.

No better way to do this than to follow TVA’s desire to become a competitive utility in the marketplace. They claim that TVA is self-sufficient; it needs no help from congress or the administration.

In order to receive all of TVA’s assets, it must also be responsible for all its debts. It’s funny how TVA has been getting away with that clause in the TVA Act of 1933 that expressly states that the federal government does not guarantee any of TVA’s indebtedness. The lending agencies apparently do not believe what the Act clearly says; TVA also clearly states that any loans are backed by the income from TVA’s ratepayers. But it is a moot point when TVA is privatized.

Under the new setup ratepayers will pay their individual light bills directly to VE, not to any intermediary cooperative. In such cases, the ratepayer will receive two bills; one for electricity and the other for the operation of the cooperative. This resolves the sticky problem of past due accounts which now become the problem of VE. This makes clearer the path from user to the new utility. There is an estimated 4 million ratepayers serving about 9 million users in the present TVA territory. TVA territory follows a meaningless route including river tributaries.

When the new corporation is defined by state and local borders, the salability of chunks of assets becomes easier. As part of the 7 sovereign states which comprise the present TVA territory, it would seem logical to sell off those non-profitable parts of the old TVA such as the small parts of Virginia, Georgia and perhaps Mississippi or Kentucky. By concentrating on the core parts of what was the old TVA, the new company can focus on profitability. That’s what makes the difference between TVA an VE, the profit motive.

More to come as we explore the change of TVA and its sustainability as a private utility.

Norsworthy Opinion

emnorsworthy@earthlink.net

Concept of Privatizationof TVA – Part 2

Concept of privatization of TVA – Part 2

December 12, 2015

 

Of the many changes from the old TVA to a private company, we must start with a solid base, hence a legal foundation in each state. In setting up the new corporation, governors of the seven states must appoint a representative that is authorized to act in the governors’ name in establishing the new private electric utility in their state.

Step 1 – A single representative from each of the seven states appointed by governor;

Step 2 – Temporary commission of seven members to serve until the new corporation is formed. Roberts Rules of Order shall be used in all official meetings. Board Members and the CEO will be named by this commission.

Step 3 – State laws pertaining to TVA, a federal agency, shall be considered moot and non-operative.

Step 4 – Tax-setting authorities in each state will determine the rates for the new corporation by determining amounts of power sold to the group of 155 utilities and for those directly served by the former TVA. Over all, the combination of taxes to the states and local governments should far exceed the present payment of 5% presently charged as payments-in-lieu-of taxes particularly since the 5% excludes so many items chosen by TVA. The amount of the PLOT to each state and locality is based on how much electricity is used; a particularly unfair distribution of PLOT.

Step 6 – Restructure the new corporation to fit into a profit-making mode, including reviews of every operation of the old TVA to determine if it costs more than it is worth. It is expected that the new electric utility will shed many operations that are eleemosynary in nature or functions that do not relate to the production and sale of electricity.

More to follow in the proposed dissolution of TVA…

Norsworthy Opinion

emnorsworthy@earthlink.net

Concept of Dissolving TVA

Concept of Dissolving TVA

December 7, 2015

Since TVA tries to be like a private utility, why not turn everything over to them and completely remove themselves from the federal government? TVA could change its name to “Tennessee Valley Energy” (TVE,) wholly owned by shareholders and in no way connected to the federal government. If this sounds shocking, well, it is as revolutionary as was the TVA Act of 1933.

This means striking down the TVA Act completely; as if it never existed. Now the conversion of TVA is another matter. Can TVA be eliminated in one fell swoop? A clean and massive break probably is the best. First, TVA has to be restructured into a private, shareholding entity. A CEO and board of directors must be established to clearly identify TVA as no longer part of the federal government.

All of the land and properties owned by the government controlled TVA will be transferred to the company called “Tennessee Valley Energy” or some such other name, a private company. When that occurs and when the new company is duly formed, the new company must be recognized as a legitimate utility by each of the seven state Public Service Commissions who approve rate changes proposed by the electric utility serving the state.

Those appointed or elected separately in each of TVA’s seven states will assume the regulatory role of electric utilities, not by the federal government. If one or more states in the seven-state TVA territory have not organized with some kind of public service commission then that state’s official governing body must recognize the new company as a legitimate utility doing business in that state.

State laws authorizing TVA will henceforth become moot and inapplicable. The proceeds from the “payments in lieu of taxes” will cease unless the new company wishes to continue them, which is unlikely since the company will be required to pay state and local taxes.

This is Part 1 of a series on the privatizing of the present TVA. Note that the administration said that when an agency like TVA loses its usefulness, it should be eliminated. This proposed method of TVA’s dissolution is one of many alternatives to accomplish this; however, a quick, clean break from the federal government would seem to accomplish the administration’s goal.

Your comments or suggestions are welcomed.

Norsworthy Opinion

emnorsworthy@earthlink.net