Patriotism and Partisanship in America

Give me back my country!

“I do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal points, think alike who think at all.  It is only those who have not thought that appear to agree.” – Thomas Paine

“I am a Democrat.”  What does this mean?  “I am a Republican.”  What does this mean?  Does anyone even know anymore?

I contend that I have never met a Democrat or a Republican.  I have met Americans, and I have met aristocrats.  Almost every American I know is exactly the same in political philosophy, differing only in historical knowledge (or lack thereof) and political application of that knowledge (or ignorance).  The typical American approach to politics, at its root, is this: always do what is best for our nation and our freedoms.  This is the basic political thought of the majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, and it matches the intent of our founders. 

There exists, however, an opinionated and vocal minority that will not rest until our freedoms are stamped out, our nation is unrecognizable, and our humanity is enslaved under the self-destructive goals of maximum employment and minumum wage.  This powerful minority has already succeeded beyond measure.  If Jesus Christ returned today, he would not recognize the religion that bears his title, because most of its members ignore his simple teachings; nor would Jefferson, Madison, or Washington claim the nation they helped to create, because it now resembles the opposite of what they intended during the revolution, before the rise of the new tyrannical minority.  The minority to which I refer is the corporate political establishment–the new aged robber barons–repackaged with mythical concerns for the community and environment, and freedom.

The corporate version of freedom is carefully defined.  Everyone should know that freedom is the absence of government coercion, but that definition of freedom does not do much to support government plunder.  It takes a very careful explanation indeed, for a people to understand why they must work five days every week and then receive pay for working only three, especially if the practice is to be perpetuated for fifty or more years of their lives.  This is why the definition of freedom must be skewed, and the process still requires what Orwell branded “doublethink,” because we all know, as individuals, that no one is better equipped to make decisions about our money than ourselves.   Liberty’s central thesis is this: no authority will ever be able to meet my needs better than I can (with the help of nature or nature’s God).  “Liberty or death” is the battle cry of the able American patriot, whether fighting the British crown in the eighteenth century, or the United States Congress in the twenty-first.

I believe it is time once again for the American people to unite against a tyrant that does not meet the nation’s basic human needs for civil liberties and free markets, and does not even give them the option of choosing leaders who actually do believe in these things, as the corporate media sees a peoples’ statesman as a serious threat to their own control over the political process.  Even media types will complain about apathy and blame themselves for it, but as soon as citizens get excited about the process, you can bet the media will call them whackjobs and undermine their efforts. 

If you don’t believe this, research Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.  Look him up on youtube or meetup, and you will see what I’m talking about.  By far the most popular candidate, Paul was intentionally crushed by the media for telling the truth too often and getting credibility amongst real people (he received more donations from military members than every other candidate in both parties combined).

Advertisements

The skeleton shelf: how the media chooses who loses

Amen.

We the people are under fire from corporate media. Their intent is uncertain, but whether for indiscriminate profit or intentional distraction, media sources are bombarding us with smoke bombs of emotion, which steadily stupefy the American voter.

Take Jeremiah Wright, for example. We are asked to listen to a prominent preacher shout obscenities about our country, and we experience a sense of shock, which naturally turns to curiosity. It is democratic, as well as human, to desire an explantion for any loud display of emotion. The news and pundits, however, never satisfy the public’s curiosity. Network presents clip A to evoke audience emotion B, and network stifles curiosity C by jack-hammering emotion B endlessly into the skulls of audience, until curiosity C disappears, and portions of democratic process and human reason disappear with it. Giving a reasoned explanation of events might diminish dramatic effect and bore the audience, or even cause them to commiserate, where it was intended they should repugn. Whether or not Wright had good reason to shout, his brief exclamations should not have been tossed out nakedly. Corporate news websites provide links to the audio or video of the incendiary bits, but even with their unrestricted format, they rarely (if ever) offer full text of Reverend Wright’s sermons, even though the whole speech is, by definition, a better reflection of character than any one part.

With Wright’s clippings and others like them, corporate media control voters. Wright is just one example of many, in which the media manipulates the voting public using emotional reactions, in this case disenfranchising Barack Obama voters. In truth, every candidate has a pastor Wright–an unseemly, destructive skeleton, of which the media is well aware. There is little doubt that networks could fill entire shelves with “guilt-by-association” files of the remaining three candidates but, thus far, they have chosen to explore only one at any length whatsoever.

We have heard the names “Jeremiah Wright” and “Bill Ayres” over and over again in recent weeks. These two toxic Obama associations are invoked day and evening on network and cable news, and talk radio. Corporate media chooses who will be our president–or rather, who will not be our President–and something about Obama does not sit well with them. It is difficult to identify Obama’s fatal flaw: it could be that he does not properly fear the corporate sponsors; it could be that his thoughts are too independent and unpredictable; it could be that another candidate would bring better profit margins to the right corporations–there is one thing that absolutely is not the reason for Barack Obama’s downfall: his pastor is too outspokenly “anti.”

For those who believe some candidate has no associations like Obama’s, let facts be revealed to a candid world:

Charles H. Keating, Jr. – responsible for fraud and bailouts that cost taxpayers and savers billions in the late 1980s, and John McCain derailed investigation proceedings because Keating had donated a substantial sum to McCain’s campaign. Keating was eventually convicted of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy. The mainstream press has not harped on this story. Why?

Rod Parsley – John McCain calls this man his “spiritual guide,” which sounds familiar to anyone who has heard prevailing Reverend Wright rhetoric. He is a critic of Islam, stating he does “not believe that our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.” While Obama’s preacher is held under the fire, McCain’s preacher seems to be getting a pass. Curious, no?

Bill Clinton – Hillary Clinton calls this man “my husband.” How have the darker sides of the Billary saga escaped notice throughout the campaign?

I heard almost two years back that “the fix is in for Hillary,” and I did not believe it at the time, but now I am starting to reconsider.  It is probably true that, had the media spent the last three weeks talking about Bill Clinton’s escapades instead of Barack Obama’s preacher, the Democrat Party’s primary would already be over.  If “the fix is in for Hillary,” then I imagine the Keating Five will become a huge story this autumn–the contrived amnesia of corporate media will suddenly subside, revealing fraudulent bailouts and stalled investigations, and all of McCain’s dirty little secrets.  It will be worn out week after week until you simply can’t consider voting for the man.

If there is a “fix,” who does the fixing?  Who decides what dirt makes the news once, and what dirt is reported over and over and over again?  It’s not the shows’ hosts, or even directors or producers–they’re all worried about making the show seem professional yet unrehearsed–so who?  Here’s a clue: follow the money–follow it all the way back to General Electric, Disney, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom, etc.  We should all have learned from the false premises of the Iraq War, that profit margins are the root causes of almost every big decision made in the United States today, and that a lie that helps stockholders is easily forgiven.

Regardless of which candidate is on the receiving end of tireless mudslinging, the democratic process is always the real loser, because voters stop basing their votes on policy positions. Of course, this miserable result matches corporate media’s miserable intent. If Americans voted based on policy positions, politicians might stop supporting these corporations’ monopolistic advantages in the U.S. market, which is plainly bad for business.

A democracy’s success depends on the rational and informed voting decisions of its citizens, but our contemporary media’s most notable gifts to society are misinformation and irrationality.  Essentially, our media and our democratic republic are fundamentally at odds with one another, and one of them will have to adapt in order to survive. For the sake of my country I hope–though with limited faith–that the media will do the changing, and the republic will survive.

Red Light Cameras = Proof Evil Exists

Hey Dubya, here's your proof that evil exists.

“All agree that the legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State. ‘Irrevocable grants of property and franchises may be made if they do not impair the supreme authority to make laws for the right government of the State; but [101 U.S. 814, 818] no legislature can curtail the power of its successors to make such laws as they may deem proper in matters of police.’ Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U.S. 645 . Many attempts have been made in this court and elsewhere to define the police power, but never with entire success. It is always easier to determine whether a particular case comes within the general scope of the power, than to give an abstract definition of the power itself which will be in all respects accurate. No one denies, however, that it extends to all matters affecting the public health or the public morals. Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 id. 25; Patterson v. Kentucky, id. 501. Neither can it be denied that lotteries are proper subjects for the exercise of this power.” – Chief Justice Waite

Despite the good intentions of public officials, in its “Request for Proposals for Automated Red Light Enforcement System,” the City of Knoxville’s legislature affects to “bargain away the police power,” which is forbidden by the United States Supreme Court in the decision above (Stone vs. Mississippi, 1879). The restriction invoked hinges on the debatable definition of “police power,” which is generally accepted as “the capacity of a government to regulate behavior and enforce order within its territory.”

Beyond the obvious illegality of camera systems, there are other noteworthy aspects of original intent that pertain to automated enforcement systems like the red light cameras in Knoxville. When we consider the constitutional framework of our government, the implementation of automated enforcement is offensive to the liberty intended. In opposition the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it assumes, searches for, and punishes the trivial moral shortcomings of free and good people-without probable cause.

The aforementioned “Request for Proposals” leaves the responsibility of policing public intersections to a private entity. This private entity is not a local company, and moreover has no responsibility to the electorate.  If the citizens do not like the way the firm operates, they cannot elect a new firm; it remains unfettered by political dissent.  Whereas the public police force has a primary objective of protecting and serving the people, the private firm’s primary objective is to earn a profit, even if at a cost to the rights, safety and happiness of citizens (as has been proven in Chattanooga’s case, among others).  With the “Request for Proposals”, the enforcement of a traffic signal is no longer for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of a private firm.

There is a psychological change that takes place in drivers as a result of traffic light enforcement, which existed before automated camera systems, but is exacerbated by their introduction. When the rules of the road originated, it was not necessary to enforce their use. With rare and extremely unusual exception, people followed the signals out of an interest in their own safety. It is now unusual for drivers to follow signals for this reason; the reason now is to follow a law, without regard to safety. While people know the signals are there to keep them safe, they do not follow them for their personal safety. Because of traffic law enforcement, the objective of an automobile’s operator has been fundamentally altered. The driver’s original purpose, “to arrive at a destination as quickly as is safely possible,” has been replaced by a new one, “to arrive at a destination as quickly as is legally possible.” This psychological change, which can only be attributed to unnecessary and costly enforcement, has made American roads much less safe, because individuals are more apt to act for their own benefit than for the pleasure of authority.

It is unfortunate for lazy enterprises that good government practices rarely grant profitable contracts, and it is the policy of bad governments, as well as bad businesses, to reward mere association and sloth. Proper engineering and timing of signals will do much more for reducing accidents than any enforcement firms ever could, but these will require natural law and common sense to be used in place of coercion and lucrative contracts, an occasion rarely seen in our time. 

Automated enforcement contracts are a dangerous sign that we are but a step from the sort of fascism Mussolini called “corporatism,” and defined as “a merger of state and corporate power.”

Request for Proposals for Red Light Automated Enforcement:
http://www.cityofknoxville.org/purchasing/bids/0513_redlight.pdf

Stone vs. Mississippi (1879):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=101&invol=814

Fourth Amendment text:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Republican Nationalism + Democrat Socialism = U.S. Nazism

National Socialism, better known as Nazism, is Clintobamonomics  combined with Bush-McCain Diplomacy and Secrecy.  When the Democrats and the Republicans do agree to terms, they usually both get what they want.  Democrats get more social planning boards and funds, and Republicans get more spy-on-the-citizens powers and nifty 007 gadgets (which will be sold to overseas dictators as well).  The two parties are hardly distinguishable at this juncture.  American Nazism is nearly upon us.  We are one terrorist attack, or one economic collapse away from martial law.  And we might bomb Iran because they are “proof that evil exists.”  I can’t even intelligently criticize such filth.

Dear Bush,

We have a saying in Tennessee.  It’s “fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  I think there’s one in Texas too, but it’s said very uncertainly, and doesn’t make as much sense.  Will the American people (or their Congress) be fooled twice?  I am not sure the Americans are that stupid, but clearly you think they are.

Sincerely, me.  P.S.: you can fly.  Jump out the window.  Trust me, it’s true.

Letter to the neo-American



I wrote the following to a dear friend and fellow American who will remain anonymous:

When I reflect on our conversations, and consider the compassionate and insightful person I know you to be, I find it hard to believe that you sincerely support the hostilities in Iraq, or that you cannot see through the confines that social planners have built around you. I would like to believe that this world is a bad dream, that the free and prosperous people of our continent could not be so overwhelmed by the narrowness and greed of an unpardonable elite. I would like to think that Americans have always refused to initiate violence–that we, as a nation, have always done what was right for everyone. I would like to wake up tomorrow morning, and be in a country where there are no talking points, no significant news concerning the federal government, no significant power or money in Washington, where the middle class feels accomplished and alive and fearless and capable every single day, and candy bars cost a penny, and freedom really does ring–it is a dream that once was near reality, in the nation firmly built on the philosophical foundations of Adam Smith and John Locke, in the constitution. Instead I will wake up to what, in this nation, should be only possible in a nightmare. I will have to gather my tax information together, and file a 1040, and write a check to the U.S. Treasury, knowing I will never see that money again, and reflecting that it may be spent killing an out-of-work delivery person in a place far away, or bailing out wealthy bankers who got a little too greedy, or throwing more money at a problem no amount could solve, or taking the home of an elderly couple so that it may be bulldozed, and the land granted to some Congressman’s golfing buddy, who specializes in developing strip malls. I will endure the artificially high prices of a market handcuffed by collusion and regulation, and hear about a recession from bank-employed market strategists whose jobs are in no danger; and through all of this, ordinary Americans will come to know the difference between being broke and being impoverished–between being a slave with a generous master, and being a slave with a discontented one–when with all of their honest labor and goodness, the people of this country should have known neither. It is difficult today to read the words of Jefferson or Paine, Goldwater or Reagan, and not become frustrated or saddened by the nuttiness of a nation that has given up on the idea of liberty, only to serve the ever-changing, highly propagandized collective ideal made up by a tiny elite in a city hundreds of miles away. My aim in writing you is only to ease the sadness and frustration I feel for the individuals of our society, and restore my own confidence in my worldly pursuits; I know these things don’t interest you all that much, and I certainly will return the favor by humoring your repulsive stories of creepy crawlies inside dead bodies. But, I feel that if I can awaken you to these issues–that if you, the American _____ ______, in your infinite compassion and enviable wisdom, can recognize the recent errors of our nation’s ways and want to see them corrected before they become our greatest mistakes–liberty may still find a rightful home here. So tell me, am I crazy?

Respecfully,

Partisan economics: no liberals in America

A sticker for every conversation you don't care to have.

The term “liberal” is misused among Republicans.  What they dislike is not true or classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism defends individual freedom, and actually advocates a free market. The Democrats the GOP complains about are far from liberal; they are socialists. The “liberal socialist” Democratic party contradicts its own character, because socialism and liberalism cannot naturally coexist. Socialism cannot be implemented without using methods that deny basic liberties.

Americans widely misunderstand their nation’s socioeconomic problems, which have come about because of monopolization and socialization of industry–the steady dismantling of the free market.  Democrats have economics all wrong, but so do Republicans.  Neither of them actually wants free market capitalism.  Both do whatever the corporate lobbyists want them to do.  Neither reads the corporate-manufactured, bipartisan legislation–legislation that stifles free market competition, and hurts the individual market participant.

Democrats use a superficial argument that has always appealed to the lowest common denominator: they blame the rich. Those who wield power and have not been elected, according to Democrats, cannot have good intentions. To them, there is nothing noble about employing a hundred people if the employer profits from it. This faulty notion is frighteningly crossing party lines, and socialist sentiment is growing among the leaders of both parties now.

If society rejects profit, private business has no reason to exist, and the state must plan the economy.   When profit is stolen by the government, the liberal socialist may momentarily feel triumphant, but this subsides upon the realization that an even larger and more coercive group of elites that were not elected must start forming–this is the group of “experts” that plan the economy private enterprise abandoned.  These experts cannot be restricted by the electorate, because the economy is too complex for the people and legislators to agree on its directives. For a socialist nation to be productive, liberty and democracy must necessarily be sidelined–scoring goals in socialism requires totalitarianism.

Democrats should be heard, but cannot be taken seriously on economic policies. Their disdain for corporations is not irrational, but it is partially misplaced, because collective power is naturally corruptive and malevolent, whether it exists in monopoly or in government.  Blind faith in government only exists because the faithful are too far removed from democratic government’s historic evils. 

Don’t worry, Republicans.  I have not forgotten you. 

Republican herds argue that corporations naturally become powerful monopolies in free market capitalism, but anyone who has observed the lengths to which corporations go to influence public policy, sees nothing natural about these monopolies.  Republicans are but a baby step ahead of socialist Democats; they oppose socialism, but see nothing wrong with corporatism, which may be more productive than socialism, but is perhaps more hostile to individual liberty and almost as destructive to individual prosperity.

Democrat and Republican leaderships should both understand–and we assume they do not, because if they do, we can only conclude that they wish ill upon our nation–that it does not do the nation good to insult the flawed socioeconomic policies of one party, if it is only for the benefit of the flawed socioeconomic policies of another.  They should both do what neither is yet willing to do: reject corporatism and maximize competitive forces of the market.  In doing so, they will have to sacrifice much power–not an easy thing for a politician to do.

The market and fascism

The Federal Reserve has decided to delay a recession–a move that will make that recession longer and more severe. A proper correction would see Dow Jones Industrial Average slump to below 8500 points, but a series of rescues orchestrated by the Fed has kept the Dow hovering around 12,000 for a few weeks. Stocks today refuse to stay afloat without the Fed’s help. Now, any time the market is up, my first question is “what did the Fed do?” The answer on March 20, 2008: “Fed adds $24 bln in reserves through 7-day repos” – Reuters.

The collateral accepted for these repurchase agreements is, of course, mortgage-backed securities. The market’s problem, according to banks, is that the Federal Reserve, in accepting over $400 billion of worthless securities this month in exchange for “liquidity”, is not doing enough to make up for banks’ irresponsible lending and investing strategies. Any greater measure than what the Fed has already taken, however, would be similar to compiling all American consumer debt to a dollar amount, and then ordering the U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving to provide that amount of cash to banks. This preposterous proposition is perhaps a better option, because it is more efficient than the slow, deceptive version of itself the Fed is employing.

The truth behind the federal government’s rescues is that individual wage earners have been abandoned by their elected officials, so that corporate campaign-makers will not have to pay for their own mistakes. This is fascism in its truest state-through unified corporate control over citizens and government, the invisible dissent of the governed requires no response. As Mussolini said, “fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.”

We see this merger in nearly every corner of American industry today. There is scarcely an established business in the country that doesn’t depend on federal preference to restrict the competitive market and maintain its slice of an ever-shrinking consumer pie. In exchange for competitive advantages and profitable contracts, established corporations (as well as other associations of concerned citizens) have financed thousands of campaigns and substituted their own agendas where the citizens’ belong, without the fear of losing power at the hands of an angry citizenry–because that citizenry remains ill-informed by the corporate media.

When we realize that over two-thirds of the nation opposes the Iraq war, when we hear the Vice President respond to that by saying “so what,” when we notice the media’s blackout of anti-war voices, when we see gasoline sellers moving in perfect unison, when we watch healthcare costs skyrocket, when we see a tax code no one comprehends, when we see laws passed that no one reads, when we understand that wealthy bankers are turning their losses over to the U.S. Treasury while inflation outpaces interest, when we come to grips with the lack of true representation in Washington, and hold before a mirror the true character of the current democratic republic, the reflection is clear and awful. We have become a mix between Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, only we suffer from a much more complete control over information, because nearly the whole nation depends on corporate television for political awareness, and nearly the whole nation nods its head at whatever the television says.  All fascist democracies characteristically believe that theirs is the freest nation in the world. It is only after the dissolution of fascist control that the masses become aware of the evil under which they lived; the few who saw it all along were always sidelined as irrational or “anti.” If the people cannot be awakened from their current state, the end of American fascism will be catastrophic.