Debunking the “beauty of the two-party system” myth

Republicrat beast
“Government is a beast” – Thomas Paine

I copy the following from a conversation I had with a Democratic friend, because I think his is one of the most common arguments in favor of the status quo, and I think it is faulty.   My friend said,

“The compromise of Democracy or Republicanism or whatever you want to call it (I think you’re splitting hairs – nobody is advocating mob rule) is what makes our country great… the constant push-pull of left and right that always eventually ends up in the middle.”

My response was this:

Is it great to bomb Pakistan?  Is it great to invade Iraq?   Is it great to detain people without evidence?  Is it great to start wars and support the pre-emptive first strike doctrine?  Is it great that the government can listen to your phone calls, read your emails, etc.?  Is it great to condone torture?  Is it great to imprison non-violent drug users?  Is it great to reward failed business practices?  Is it great to call dissenters terrorists?  Is it great that both parties support all of these measures?  When policies like these have become your cherished middle ground, is the push-pull of left and right really so great?  I think justice is great.  Many have died willingly for it, and i think they were all great.  Supporting moderation in the pursuit of justice is the mark of a person who is not great.”

There is nothing beautiful about two parties whose petty quarrells never fail to bring more government, more police, more imperialism, and less freedom.

Advertisements

B.J. Lawson: a common sense conservative

A Congressman who cares

Remember when Republicans were elected to downsize government? In 1994, the American people were inspired by the prospects of economic freedom to vote Republicans into office. In 2001, George W. Bush was expected to come in and aid them in that effort. It did not happen. Under Bush and the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2006, the U.S. federal government grew tremendously, and fiscal conservatives everywhere were left shaking their heads in disdain. What happened to the small government Republican?

Remember when Republicans were elected to end wars? The time may be returning. Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 to end the war in Iraq, but the war goes on. Now, a new breed of Republican has emerged–or more properly, an old breed of Republican has returned–to end draining wars that are, upon full investigation, little more than a product of power and greed, an excuse for higher taxation, as well as a cause of rising inflation–not to mention the leading cause of brutal death among American youths. When we elect policymakers, we will do well to remember that “the most unprofitable of all commerce is that connected with foreign dominion. To a few individuals it may be beneficial, merely because it is commerce; but to the nation it is a loss. The expense of maintaining dominion more than absorbs the profits of any trade.”

In two paragraphs, I have acknowledged the two most important goals in the minds of American voters over the last 15 years: to decrease the size of government, and to end the war in Iraq. These two goals have been the major deciding factors for the partisan power shifts in Washington in recent decades. Neither has yet been accomplished, and it seems that those who desire one of the two, are willing to concede the public goal for another benefit that is less important to the people. However, there is a new breed of Republican, modeled after the 18th century intellectual, who makes both of these primary intentions of the American people the top priorities in policymaking. Who is this dream candidate? B.J. Lawson of North Carolina’s Fourth District.

Despite his facing a multiple-decade incumbent of Washington’s bureaucratic old guard, there is, in my opinion, little doubt that Lawson will win a seat in Congress this year. If he were to lose, it would be an insult to the intellect of North Carolina’s Fourth District. He is as vivacious as his opponent is ancient, but his energy is not a product of his youth, but of his enlightenment; there is a sense that has been awakened in him, which will soon be awakened in all of us–it is as Paine described it: “a mass sense lying in a dormant state, and which, unless something excites it to action, will descend with us, in that condition, to the grave.”

My advice to the Fourth District of North Carolina is simply this: do not vote again for a ruler; vote instead for a leader. On this, our Independence Day, remember that men who shared David Price’s political philosophy were among those that favored the British Crown in 1776; but men who shared the philosophy of B.J. Lawson, who believed whole-heartedly in liberty, pledged to the American cause their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. If the citizens are informed and intelligent, and vote their consciences, B.J. Lawson cannot fail to be elected.

Iraqis have a voice, “but nobody listened.” Will you?

We have committed the invasion.

I have written a book; and if it cannot be refuted, it cannot be condemned. But I do not consider the prosecution as particularly leveled against me, but against the general right, or the right of every man, of investigating systems and principles of government, and showing their several excellencies or defects.” – Thomas Paine

Don’t share this with anyone allergic to truth. I have recently seen testimony that is–shocking is not the right word–horrifying. The official story we have been told about Iraq is a lie so big (though some leader, perhaps modeling for our own, once noted that people are more apt to believe a big lie than a small one), that I fear American heads will roll as a result of its telling, and perhaps justly. The big lie has officially lost legitimacy, and can now only be perpetuated through force. God bless America.

Iraqi leaders have been allowed to talk to members of Congress on CSPAN, and it should well ruin the war propaganda campaign that the Clinton and Bush Administrations, in conjunction with mainstream U.S. media (yes this includes “conservative” talk show hosts), have been orchestrating against the American and Iraqi people for the past decade. What the Iraqis are revealing, to the horror of Americans who have tuned in:

  • “The surge is working” is a lie, and always has been. Anyone who uses this phrase after the revelations of 06.04.08 is either a contemporary or a follower of Goebbels, and should be prosecuted for sedition or libel, before their efforts pave in America, a short road to Nazi Germany. Those who henceforth perpetuate the lie that the surge is working are war criminals, and perpetrate crimes against humanity, by extending an illegal, unjust and murderous war through known falsities.
  • Iraq is undeniably capable of defending itself without U.S. military aid, and has been for some time.
  • The U.S. is not defending Iraq from Iranian invasion.
  • Iraqis would rather have Saddam Hussein than what America has “given” them.
  • Most Iraqis want American forces to withdraw.
  • Continued presence of American troops in Iraq will increase the size and strength of terrorist militias there.

If we believe it too radical to suggest that the people of a nation should govern themselves, if we believe that our distant and uninformed (if not misinformed) opinions will serve the Iraqi people better than their knowledge and experience can serve themselves, if we lack (or unpardonably disregard) the God-given virtues of humility and compassion that the Scripture commands us in all of our affairs to employ, and if we disdain our own blessings so severely that we might arrogantly idolize ourselves as Rulers of the Universe, then we will care very little for what the Iraqi people think of our presence in their country.

As American republicans and good people, what I have described in the preceding stanza is not our condition, but if it were, we could rightly call ourselves evil, and if unrepentant, we would certainly deserve Hell, presuming its existence. If our intentions in Iraq are good, we must seek to remove all ambiguity from our understanding of the conflict, because, as a selfish but quotable man once wrote, “the consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity.” A selfless and more quotable man expressed as much in fewer words: “mystery is the antagonist of truth.” And I’m told a wise chimpanzee shared a banana. With that in mind, I leave you to the material at hand, with this advice in closing: seek truth, remove ambiguity, remain conscious of good intentions, eliminate mystery, and most importantly, share your bananas.

Why hasn’t the media been telling us that these tan-colored, robed creatures in Iraq are capable of rational thought? I feel misled, for I almost believed Iraqis were little more than cackling orangutans with bombs strapped to their torsos. Apparently this Iraq War thing Americans have been watching almost as attentively as they watched season six of Survivor–Iraqis actually care about it for some reason. You would think the Iraq War actually affected their lives. Go figure. Maybe it does. Who knows? Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to see what these surprisingly rational residents of Mess-o-potamia are saying, and I have compiled some video and quotes from my worldwide web travels.

Some quotes from a prominent Iraqi Shiite leader and a prominent Iraqi Sunni leader, sitting side by side in the Capitol Building in Washington:

“I just would like to assert that Iraq is capable to defend itself.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“The majority of the people of Iraq are for the withdrawal, perhaps even about 70 percent.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“The [American] Embassy in Iraq has an incredibly large amount of staff. It is certainly larger than the diplomatic mission for which it has arrived. I have information that there may be about three-thousand employees, and there certainly is another view than the one that we see … From the principle of reciprocity, would it be appropriate for the Iraqis to establish a three-thousand employee embassy in Washington?” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“There definitely is a resentment for the presence of [U.S.] military bases.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“I would prefer if it [the invasion of Iraq] didn’t happen, because it led to the destruction of the country. The U.S. got rid of one person. It put in hundreds of persons that are worse than Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, now Iran is going into Iraq, and this is under the umbrella of the United States.” – Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, Iraqi Parliament

“Increasing the number of forces [a.k.a., the troop surge] didn’t affect the level of violence in Iraq. What led to the reduction of terrorism acts and violence was the forces of … those volunteers from the tribes of the areas where terrorists are more, and those forces managed to eliminate the terrorists, because they know them, and they know their tactics. We suggested that a long time ago for our government and for the American government, but nobody listened. I believe that the reduction of the level of violence is due mainly to the efforts of the volunteers. I believe the thing that will reduce the violence more–not a military force–but having realistic solutions to convince others to join the political process. I believe the best method to achieve that is a real national reconciliation, not only slogans, as is being done now.” – Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, Iraqi Parliament

“Many of the armed militias were established in order to fight the presence of foreign troops on their land, so their justification is to liberate Iraq from the foreign troops, so as soon as the troops have withdrawn, they have no more justification to exist, because it doesn’t make sense for them to start killing their own compatriots. It is my belief that when the troops withdraw, these groups will not bear arms any longer. And for as long as we have foreign troops on our land, these groups will actually increase in number…the presence of foreign troops is actually serving these groups. In the case of a withdrawal, we can rehabilitate them so that they can become civilians, and then include them in the democratic process in Iraq.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXelUuw4nWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3eQVVe-dH0

Jesse “the Body” Ventura mind-slams the Republicrats

stiff

“I’m pleased to report my success in repealing one law.  It had to do with the game of bingo.” – Jesse Ventura

How could I resist?  The ex-wrestler turned politician named his book Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me!  How am I supposed to resist reading that?

Of all the insane people in the world, Jesse Ventura is perhaps the most sensible.  In his latest book, he talks about his days as navy SEAL, pro wrestler, and governor.  He also rails against organized religion and the political establishment, and toys with the idea of running for President with Bobby Kennedy’s son, Robert Jr.

Ventura discusses some of the most recent paranoias he has developed.  Having long considered JFK’s assassination to be government conspiracy, Ventura discusses his own suspicious brushes with the CIA as Minnesota’s governor.

A few rays of truth shine through Ventura’s forest of distraction.  He recognizes that Americans want a type of change the media won’t allow them to see.  He recognizes the disadvantages of partisanship, and the absurdity of voting for the lesser of two evils.  He reveals his heart to be pure, even if his education is not officially so.  He feels and perpetuates a revolutionary spirit, kindled in America, that will not burn out until the whole nation is engulfed by its flames once again–the old revolutionary spirit of freedom.

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).

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.

Let me get this straight, neoconservative freak

A continuation of my education of the neocon: 

Let me get this straight. You think a tall slender man in the mountains of Central Asia is orchestrating the end of American freedoms. Okay. Assuming that true, we must also admit that Bin Laden has received help in this pursuit from the Bush administration. Are we not losing civil liberties because of Bush’s fear of Osama Bin Laden? Bush and Bin Laden: working together against American freedoms.

I did not mention personal responsibility, but I really don’t see how “the absence of government coercion” can exist without personal responsibility. Personal responsibility should be an assumption in America. There is no need for a nanny state. Also, you forgot the definition of the word “liberal.” I dislike progressives and socialists–not liberals, but liberals gone wild, progressives who seek to correct past grievances by creating more of them (like affirmative action or welfare) in the opposite direction, i.e., Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or just about every Democrat politician. This is why I can’t vote Democrat-because they are not really “liberals” but progressives and socialists. They pay lip service to liberty to get the anti-war and anti-surveillance state vote. The grocery list of complaints belongs to these people, but I can claim none of them–I would request earplugs if I had to spend more than a few moments listening to whatever crap the media has told them to worry about lately. True, they share my discontent with the war, but they have no idea why. I dislike unjust war. They just dislike war.

My guide is nature. “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” My common ideal is individualism–the belief that a human is a human, and should be free from government-forced collective ideals. Individual freedoms used to be a Republican Party stronghold. So did claiming that there is no need for the nanny state. Apparently the party now believes individual freedoms are not as important as some greater ideal (this is the opposite of the Reagan conservatism that carried Republicans to Congress in 1994). We have fallen into the trap of believing that, if we become a little bit more like the militants and totalitarians, it will be easier to beat them. But without liberty, what is America? Oh well, this year’s media-anointed Republican candidate is only the straw man anyway. His only hope of winning is if a terrorist attack occurs before the election (he can cross his fingers and hope).

It is unfortunate to read that even our most promising youth recite party ideals instead of practicing personal responsibility and thinking for themselves–that they mangle the meanings of simple words like “freedom” and “liberty,” and misfortune turns to fright on the realization that energy and aspiration are combining with falsehood. What falsehood, you may wonder. Only this: “Americans do not incite violence.” This is your opinion, and it will remain the same regardless of what the facts are. Perhaps you did not read the 9/11 Commission’s report. Perhaps you misunderstand human nature. Perhaps you misunderstand the historic social revelations of the 20th century. But you should understand that your ignorance (assuming not ill will) combines with your democratic influence to “plunder seas and ravage coasts,” and yes, incite violence.

In Iraq’s Diyala province, Specialist Jerry Ryen King wrote, “I thought it was pretty comical that I shot at a guy a long ways out but missed, and later after taking his house and using it as a patrol base, he offered me Chai and rice.” In the insanity of war, this does seem comical, but what if he King had not missed? Might the killing of a gentle, peaceful Iraqi incite violence from his friends, family, and countrymen? Might they even become associated with the dreaded Al-Qaeda? It makes some sense. Such, I realize, are the necessary realities of war, but they are also the reasons unnecessary wars should not be waged.

I would, if I could know the facts, give Bush credit for preventing the attacks since 9/11, but his government is so secretive that I cannot know whether his preventative measures have done much good. Has he saved 5,000 American lives to make up for the 5,000 he has sacrificed? Has he saved only a few? One can only wonder. Moreover, his solution to terrorism is like pulling the leaves off of a tremendous tree, only to see them multiply faster than he can remove them. In order to down the beast, we must lay the axe to the root, and he seems quite unaware of that simple truth. He seems not to even know the root of terrorism-why in the early 1990s Osama Bin Laden and his contemporaries began professing their hatred for America. If the President does know these reasons, he is careful to ignore them and focus on “democracy,” the esteemed political process that gave the coercive powers of government to Stalin, Hitler, Ahmedinejad, and Hamas. Democracy: not the solution. Constitution is the solution.

Your interpretation of Osama Bin Laden’s quote is reminiscent of National Socialist Germany’s claims about their enemies-at least they had the luxury of lying about nations with real military power–the American neoconservatives’ cause is much more difficult, because they are forced to try to convince our nation that an obscure figure living among mountain goats on the other side of the world is our greatest threat to national security. Maybe you forgot that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia-nearly every nation we now blame for terrorism-also hated Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. Maybe you haven’t noticed the exponential increase in Al-Qaeda’s numbers since we went to Iraq. Indeed, everyone in the Middle East seems to be allied with Al-Qaeda now, when on September 11, their numbers were no more than a few hundred. How, on the battlefield, do we know they are Al-Qaeda? Quite simply, if they are dead, they are Al-Qaeda-excuse me, were Al-Qaeda. Maybe I don’t know the facts on the ground as well as you do, but I think it noteworthy that more troops (who know the situation better than both of us) donated to Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign than to all the other campaigns combined, Democrat and Republican. They must be confused about what is going on in Iraq, right? Perhaps they are only victims of their unfortunate oath to the Constitution-those poor misguided young souls who promised to defend something that their Commander in Chief does not believe in. That’s alright. We showed the troops. They want Ron Paul as Commander? We’ll give them John McCain! May they fight in the Middle East for a hundred years, regardless of the situation on the ground!

It is the claim of the socialist, the fascist, the corporatist, the sycophant, the Democrat, and the Republican that the Constitution is antiquated. “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” They often base this thinking on the fact that many of the framers owned slaves, as if that makes all of those men’s intellects repulsive. It has become too common in this country to disregard all of a man’s principles because of one of his practices, and view politicians as semi-gods, cowering in shock anytime they humanly misstep. I know you only mean well for your country, as nearly all do, but men of your nature, who believed in their country but not in constitutional liberty, were hung at Nuremburg despite their good intentions. If we choose to continue to ignore the Constitution even when we are aware of the results of our errors, the United States of America will soon be compelled to proclaim, in the words of the poet, “a long farewell to all my greatness.”

The response I got from the letter above was something along the lines of, “I don’t have time to think about all this.  I am busy with more important things.  I just want to be a career politician.  Leave me alone.  Please go back to not thinking, like the electorate is supposed to do.  Thank you, and don’t write again.”  If the author makes an attempt at public office, I will sell my condo to donate money to the other guy’s campaign.  I like to think politicians do not know that what they are doing is causing all sorts of problems for their country, but this guy is just an insensitive bastard.