Ignorance v. Oklahoma: state sovereignty, and its frightening media blackout

I heard a rumor today that Oklahoma’s state legislature had declared sovereignty from federal mandates it considered beyond the national government’s constitutional powers. On blogs and independent news outlets around the world, the news of Oklahoma’s resolution was making its rounds. The state invoked the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Oklahoma has informed the United States government that it will not continue to follow the federal government’s requests, if those requests fall outside the specific powers given to the federal government by the Constitution. Oklahoma’s House of Representatives believes the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government, and is ready to fight in court to restrict it back to its legal prerogatives.

This would greatly dampen the federal government’s control in Oklahoma in many policy areas: education, transportation, identification, immigration, licensing, taxation, banking, the list goes on and on.

Who would this hurt? No ordinary Americans, but some large corporations stand to literally topple if the federal government is limited to its Constitutional scope. These corporations and the over-sized government rely on each other for survival, steadily sucking money and power from their rightful owners, individual Americans, who are fed a steady stream of television and radio propaganda so that the scheme may be perpetuated. This leaves the thinking American wondering why nearly everyone hates the government, hates corporations, and hates the nation’s direction, but no one seems ever able to do anything about it.

Here is your answer: people are trying to do something about it, but corporate media will not allow American citizens to know what is actually good for them, because it would likely hurt profit margins.

Despite the fact that this is one of the more important news stories of the day (if not this era), I could not find a mention about Oklahoma’s declaration of sovereignty on any corporate media outlets. I decided to find out if the story was nothing more than a big Internet hoax. It was real. It is real. Not only did the Oklahoma House vote for the resolution, they passed it 92 – 3, and language of the bill is forceful and direct, aimed at undermining the federal government as aggressively as necessary.

Bloggers and independent media are no strangers to mainstream media blackouts, but this blackout seems particularly impressive in its orchestration. First of all, this is a complete corporate blackout of what is probably the most fundamental piece of legislation passed in Oklahoma in many years. Not only are national networks ignoring it, the local news won’t cover it either. It is as though the Oklahoma state legislature has been disappeared by the corporate political establishment, which is frightening.

If the federal government can get away with ignoring a legitimate state legislature and the Constitution as if neither even exists, imagine what they are capable of doing to freelance bloggers who defend the Constitution, or a peaceful assembly of libertarians, or political opponents, or the entire population of a minority religion. Imagine that, and suddenly the American flags covering this nation will begin to resemble something historic and horrible, the names of American rulers will begin to take on a German tone, and it will appear as though President Bush is growing a dark toothbrush mustache.

I have been looking, but have still been unable to find a mainstream media mention of the resolution. Please let me know if you have better luck.

It is almost indisputable: there is a civil war going on for control of the minds of Americans. It pits the United States propagandists against the Oklahomans, defenders of a free society. Will Americans be allowed to think for themselves, or will they continue to irrationally observe and repeat whatever comes out of the noisy, flashing boxes in their living rooms?

A Nation of Fences (05.23.08)

I have heard several Israeli residents complain of the unwanted attention their nation receives from the U.S. media.  The most hated countries in the world, they realize, are the ones to which America pays the most attention: Iran and their own.  They want sovereignty and independence–they want to be left alone–but they seem fairly disinterested in learning the means toward that end. 

They are more than willing to accept U.S. aid.  It is unreasonable to accept the aid without expecting the attention.  With regard to Israel, the U.S. acts as a parent holding a child’s allowance.  Certainly the parent chooses its expenditures on a whim, but when it betroths a portion of its revenues to its begotten, the parent becomes overly concerned with how the child appropriates those funds, and the child reacts as children do, ill-tempered and irrational, and unable to realize its own potential to raise revenues.

Economic independence and national sovereignty are inseparable–one follows the other as obediently as night follows day–and until Israel votes for the former, it should expect the latter will never exist.  Both, moreover, are essential for any country that wishes to be free, which appears may not be one of Israel’s goals.  Based upon every conversation of policy I have had in this country, I can only conclude at this time that the collective political tide of Israel disdains true freedom, and seeks only to be Jewish and secure–two words with varying definitions from Israeli to Israeli.  In simpler terms, the nation of Israel can say not what it hopes to be, or for which principles it stands; everything is correct as long as it exists.

There is nothing free about a fence.  I have said before (and will probably say again) that a nation of five million free souls is far preferable to one of ten million living in servitude to an authority created by humans.

Our leader Yossi says, “All Israelis would like to see a time when the fences could be taken down, but for security, we need them now.  We pray for peace.” 

Peace, however, is less dependent on prayer than it is on tolerance and principle.  To the argument for “temporary” security measures, I refer to the philosophy of Ben Franklin, who wrote, “Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security, will have neither liberty nor security.”  Additionally, it is folly to believe that a free nation requires such an extensive military operation.  In its true form, freedom secures itself, because a constitutional republic that limits itself to the protection of rights, will find its enemies disappearing with remarkable rapidity.  Israel has no such government, and it appears to me an affront to the natural gifts God gave humankind.

I cannot believe that God simply despises certain humans, and wishes to see them suffer where others relax.  My heart and mind tell me that most of the misfortune in this country occurs on the other sides of these fences, and as it is the nature of compassion to associate with misfortune, I feel a Jewish association with the Palestinians.

But it would be unpardonably short-sighted for my compassion to expose only one side of the fence.  The only authorities more absurd than those of the Israelis are those of the surrounding Arab lands.  It would be wise for Muslims to reject their own various despotisms and learn the freedom intended clearly within the patchwork of our one human creator.

The struggles for power over other individuals by the fanatics on both sides of these fences, must inevitably end in a true revolution for liberty, and it must be done in partnership by people of all types, against the faulty powers that be–both Israeli and Arab.