Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

IS RUSSIA OUR ENEMY?

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

Note (16MAY2016): Russia is modernizing its military and fortifying its position in the Black Sea. What to do? Are we to go to war?

Consider these United States of America simultaneously conducting warfare in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria while going to war against China in the South Pacific, North Korea, and Russia. Currently, this nation on fire has launched economic warfare with 28 other countries in the form of sanctions — sanctions that punish American enterprise whilst rewarding foreign enterprise. Such is American foreign policy.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington’s Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

The government of these United States of America has characterized Russia as an enemy. It has done so by levying economic and political sanctions. Such sanctions are tantamount to a declaration of economic and political warfare. If Russia really is our enemy, in what way?

Economics
In contrast to China, Germany, Japan, and Mexico, economically what threat does Russia represent? Yes, it is the largest country geographically in the world. Yes, it contains immense natural resources, much of which remain undeveloped. Those natural resources comprise the substantial majority of Russian exports. Yet, a relatively small percentage go to these United States. Compared to the American trading deficit with China or even Mexico, they are negligible. So, does Russia represent an economic threat to these United States?

Politics
In contrast to our southern neighbor, politically what threat does Russia represent? Admittedly, yesteryear, cloaked in its garb of international socialism while waving the banner of the erstwhile Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, it did. The Communist Party USA, funded by the USSR and composed of those whom Lenin called “useful idiots”, boasted a sizable membership and influenced especially American academia and entertainment. Today, there remains no USSR. There remains only Russia — a Russia in political turmoil as it evolves from the chaos of collapsed Communism followed by ineffectual democracy heading towards the authoritative order of Fascism.

To what extent are the internal politics of Russia the official business of these United States, anyway? Cannot a case can be made that Russia needs a Tsar in whatever form, be it a Catherine the Great or a Stalin and that it now is getting a new one in the person of Vladimir Putin? So, does Russia represents a political threat to these United States?

Culture
In contrast to our own, homegrown, Marxist-oriented egalitarians, sociologically what threat does Russia represent? As these United States sink ever more deeply into a semi-psychotic, moral cesspool of abominations never before witnessed in history, Russia seems to represent something of the opposite. The government there has strengthened its ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and promotes traditional moral values based upon Judeo-Christian liturgy. Whereas ordinary Russians may not meet the standards set by church and government, the country remains one of the last bastions of those values. Meanwhile, Russia has intervened in American sociological affairs not at all. So, does Russia represent a sociological threat to these United States?

Military
Ah, but what about militarily? Does not a nuclear-armed, militarily modernizing Russia represent a direct threat to the stability of the world, let alone these United States?

It depends upon one’s point of view. From the point of view of the neo-conservatives, who never met a war, especially a losing war, that they didn’t love, the answer is yes. To the financial profits and power to the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned us two generations ago, the answer is yes. From the pont of view of the Founding Fathers, however, might not the answer be no?

Is Russia invading these United States? Is it threatening to invade these United States? Is it massing armaments and troops on our borders or even anywhere near them as this nation is doing to Russia?

Is not the irony that these United States may be under attack, but the attack is not from Russia? Are not the real invaders illegal aliens who may be unarmed but represent invaders, nonetheless? Are not the primary nations attacking these United States Mexico and some other Latin American countries? Do not the Mexicans label their particular invasion “La Reconquista”?

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease, and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

Also, what about the Mohammedans? Despite smaller numbers, no small matter is the invasion by Mohammedans, who soon will outnumber Jews in this nation on fire. Do not they label their aggression as “The Silent Invasion” although it is anything but silent in Europe?

So, to what extent does Russia represent a military threat as the aggressor to these United States? To what extent do these United States represent a military threat as the aggressor to Russia?

PART TWO

In discussing Russo-American relations, any defense of the Russian position automatically generates vituperative responses ad hominem from those who place opinion before knowledge. To adopt their myopic, biased viewpoint is to place this nation and the rest of the world in danger of a nuclear annihilation that nobody but a fanatical Mohammedan wants. Let us, therefore, attempt a more dispassionate analysis and offer an alternative to current American, foreign policy — an alternative consistent with advice of the father of this nation.

Who Is The Real Aggressor?
Is it not the fact of the matter that it is these United States that has acted as the aggressor toward Russia? Is it not we who instigated a successful plot to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine in order to prevent it linking closer to its historic ally, Russia? Is it not we who have levied international sanctions against Russia for retaliating against this American-inspired plot?

Russia has not been the only target in that regard. We have levied international sanctions against almost thirty other nations, as well. Who suffers most? American commercial enterprises.

Is not demanding other nations obey our economic and political dictates a form of extraterritoriality? Is it not we who have placed arms and troops on the Russian border, using an otherwise impotent NATO as camouflage?

After World War Two, we created NATO as an agency for the defense of Western Europe against an aggressive and hostile USSR. Today, there remains no USSR, but there still remains a NATO that we have expanded to include nations far from the Atlantic Ocean — nations bordering on Russia itself. Are we willing to engage in total, nuclear war with Russia, a war that will exterminate all aerobic life on Earth, to defend Estonia, assuming Estonia even needs defending?

Indeed, Russia may be attempting to expand its sphere of national interest to include nations historically under its influence. Do history and tradition justify such an attempt? Once again, the answer depends upon one’s point of view.

In its attempt to expand its influence, did Russia invade Ukraine? Did it not merely negotiate agreements with the freely elected government in Kiev? Was it not these United States that intervened, promoting rebellion to overthrow that legitimate government? The rebellion was successful. Had there been no American-inspired rebellion, would Russia have reclaimed Crimea militarily?

Hegemony
So, does not the issue become reduced to the quest by these United States to retain hegemony worldwide? Can we? Even if we can, is it in our interests? Can we afford it?

In the words of former Speaker of the House of Representative, John Boehner, “We’re broke!”

Does President Washington’s advice, as quoted above, mean to become isolationist? Does it not mean to become non-interventionist, intervening only when it is in our direct, immediate, national interest in a way that also is in our national interest? Should these United States not support republican liberty wherever we find it — support it in spirit but neither in blood nor coin?

An Alternative
“In matters of international diplomacy and foreign affairs, we shall return to the principles and guidelines laid down by our Founding Fathers.  The principles and guidelines are readily available for anyone to read in the Constitution of the United States of America, in the Federalist Papers, and in Washington’s Farewell Address.  Accordingly and effective immediately, the United States of America recognizes diplomatically the de facto existence of any nation with which we are not officially at war.  We shall withdraw our military forces from all bases outside the Western Hemisphere by the end of this year, including withdrawal from NATO … the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  If any nation wishes our military to remain or to establish installations, we shall review that request with regard to our national interests.  If we decide that specific installations are in our national interest, that nation will pay us for our helping it to defend itself.  It will pay all direct costs plus fifteen percent for administrative overhead.  No longer will Americans pay to protect others while they divert money from their own military defenses to commercial offensives against us, their protectors.  If others want American military protection, they must pay for it.  We re-affirm that the Western Hemisphere comprises the primary area of United States’ national interest.  In that regard, we also re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 prohibiting the stationing of African, Asian, or European troops or bases in the Western Hemisphere outside Africa or Europe.”
-Excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.

-End-

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

SAVING THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT

Monday, March 21st, 2016

In the Spring of 2015, the Republican establishment had planned to repeat its coup of 2000. In that year, its candidate was George W. Bush, whose nomination it bought with huge funding early on. For the nomination in 2016, it would be his younger brother,  John Ellis “Jeb” Bush. On 15 June, Jeb announced his well-planned candidacy. The plan would fail miserably despite a blown $100-million.

Then came Donald Trump. Despite the predictions of the pundits, his popularity surged as Jeb’s dwindled to next to nothing. What’s an arrogant, corrupt, power-hungry, establishment-oriented politician to do?

Trump represents the proverbial “wild card”. Nobody, probably even Trump himself, can predict his behavior as President. The Republican establishment feels affrighted that he will wreck the Party, meaning he will dislodge its feckless, hypocritical leaders.

Those leaders oppose “The Donald”. A majority of Republican voters oppose him. To date, Trump never has won a majority in even one state. Yet, he likely now will become the Republican candidate as a consequence of the egotistical behavior by two, petty politicians — Kasich and Rubio.

Had these two acted in statesmanlike fashions by withdrawing after Super Tuesday, Senator Cruz might have beaten Trump in every primary held on the ides of March, possibly even Florida. Instead, he lost every one.

After Super Tuesday, neither Kasich nor Rubio mathematically could win the nomination. Yet, they remained as spoilers, and spoilers they were; Rubio being humiliated in his home-state of Florida with less than ⅓ of the votes and Kasich semi-humiliated in his home-state of Ohio with less than ½ of the votes.

As in 1996 with Dole and in 2008 with McCain, the Republican establishment once again is shooting itself in the foot. After Super Tuesday, the establishment launched a vitriolic campaign against Trump, thereby, acting deceitfully. Earlier on, a supposedly neutral establishment had extracted from Trump a pledge not to run as an independent; then, with that pledge in hand, it turned on him viciously. Instead of its deceitful, vitriolic campaign, it should have convinced Kasich and Rubio to withdraw. Fat chance!

“An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.” -Simon Cameron (1799-1889)

The Republican establishment feels hatred for Cruz as much as it feels affrighted by Trump. Cruz would abolish the Gestapo-like Internal Revenue Service in favor of a “flat tax”. Such an action scares silly both Democrats and Republicans. How’s an incumbent to remain in power without manipulating the tax-code in favor of political donors?

Now, the only hope for the Republican establishment is to deny Trump a majority going into the convention. By doing so, it hopes for a contested convention with Kasich or some other stand-by gaining the nomination even if he loses the election.

Better Clinton than Cruz or Trump? Absolutely. First and foremost, save the establishment!

In the words of Chester A. Riley, “What a revoltin’ development this is!”

See “Revoltin’ Developments” below.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

REVOLTIN’ DEVELOPMENTS

Monday, March 14th, 2016

In the long-gone, radio-broadcasted series, Life of Riley, William Bendix, who played Riley invariably would say about the consequences of his latest, ill-conceived, misguided scheme,“What a revoltin’ development this is!”

Could these United States of America speak for themselves, they very well might utter the same exclamation, “What a revoltin’ development this is!”

Consider the following: Rampant corruption. Economic debt. Loss of liberty. Parasitic lawyerism. Military defeats. Unbridled licentiousness.

What’s a nation to do? Is there no help on the horizon?

Wait! Listen.

Are they birds? Planes? Nope!

Within a dense cloud of political flatus expelled by a flock of self-proclaimed, political saviors, two of those self-styled saviors screech the most alarmingly. Flying through the airwaves, they, too, promise a better tomorrow — or next day — or week, month, or year thereafter. Yet, their screeching most accurately reflects a deeply seated, highly prevalent distress felt by many Americans.

These two, self-proclaimed saviors? The Democrat — Independent — Socialist Bernie Sanders. The Democrat — Independent — Republican Donald Trump.

Why target only to these two political birds, in particular? Because they personify the revoltin’ development into which this declining nation now on fire has gotten itself. Furthermore, both campaigns bellow most loudly an old message borrowed from the Nazis’ camapigns in the late1920s —“We’re not one of them!”

Who are the “them”? Established members of the two, major political parties who, over the years, jointly have led this nation down the Path to Perdition.

What about these two “saviors”? Whence came they?

“Bernie” Sanders
Eli Sanders was a Polish-Jew who had emigrated to these United States of America. In 1940, he perversely expressed his gratitude to this nation by bestowing upon it his son, Bernard, destined to be a loudmouthed, left-winged revolutionary bent upon the destruction of the land that had allowed him the privilege to be born into it.

Bernie became the quintessential Jew of The Left. He labels himself a “Social Democrat”, a term that encompasses a multitude of sins. Based upon his political behavior, he is a quasi-Marxist, at best, and an outright Judeo-Bolshevik, at worst. Let us not forget that in 1950, Jews such as “Bernie” comprised half the membership of the Communist Party USA. Lenin had referred to them as “useful idiots”, and Bernie surely fills the bill.

As such, “Bernie” joins the group of disestablishmentarians whose primary, targeted goals are to have dispossessed completely the increasingly dispossessed majority of Christian Euro-Caucasians and to have subjugated that majority into becoming only one minority among many led by the self-styled elites in Big Government. Sadly, they have been succeeding. In succeeding, they are trashing almost every traditional, American ideal and value in the name of their idiosyncratic brand of “social justice”.

See “The Jewish Question”.

“Bernie” may offer something different from the traditional, American past, but, contrary to his propaganda, he offers nothing new. His policies and programs reflect the past of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. They represent the kind of ideologically-driven tyranny against which our Founding Fathers rebelled.

See “The Disestablishmentarians”.

“The Donald” Trump
In contrast to the Jewish Sanders, the Protestant Trump traces his roots to Germany. His father, Fred, had a history of anti-Semitism and sympathy for the Ku Klux Klan, a sympathy held also by many American Euro-Caucasians at the time. One only can wonder what might Fred think of his granddaughter, Ivanka, marrying an Orthodox Jew and converting to Judaism?

As the late Harry Golden might have said, “Only in America!”

“The Donald” himself is a loosely principled, deceitful, bragging, crass, litigious, wheeler-dealing “trust fund baby” from Manhattan. His fundamental appeal that sets him apart is that he says that which many Americans think but feel too affrighted to say, and he says that which the mealy-mouthed, feckless, hypocritical Republican candidates never would dream of saying with the possible exception of Ted Cruz — and he to only some slight extent.

In his favor, Trump represents not the professional politician but the citizen-representative whom the Federalists wrongly envisioned as governing the nation. Unfortunately, he also represents not the statesman over time but the demagogue of the moment whom the anti-Federalists rightly feared actually would be governing.

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

A majority of productive Americans fears its government or should. A majority of productive Americans understands that the federal government has become corrupt, incompetent, self-serving, and tyrannical. It’s their justified anxiety that fuels Trump’s campaign.

In contrast to Sanders’s “socialistic revolution”, what does Trump offer other than his hollow, jingoistic promise to “make America great again”? Great again? Really? How? Therein lies the problem, as usual.

Well, firstly he’ll build a wall against illegal, Mexican migration. Fine, what else?

What else? Nothing specific. The specifics, he promises, will come from a group of experts whom he plans to assemble. They’ll represent “the best” people.

One moment, please! “Best” is the superlative form of the adjective “good”. What is Trump’s definition of “good”. As does every effective salesman, he leaves it to the imagination of the listener.

As David Hannum (1832-1892) said of the successful antics of the showman, P.T. Barnum (1810-1891), “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Trump’s candidacy is based upon trust — trust in Trump. Would you trust “The Donald” with your money and future?

An Alternative
“The woman Folly is riotous; She is thoughtlessness and knoweth nothing.” -Proverbs 9:13

While admittedly entertaining, the current political circus reflects a riotous rot in the heart and soul of these United States. Truly decent, qualified candidates, such as Jim Webb, quickly and rudely are shunted aside then forgotten. The crudest, most crass, most indecent, and most vulgar survive.

There is an alternative. A political system based upon a repaired Constitution, traditional American ideals and values, and the science of human behavior. To begin, science offers the Scientific Method with its three guidelines of specificity, objectivity, and accountability; all of which always have been lacking and remain so today. Therein lies the root of our current rot.

Specificity n.: defining events in a way that differentiates those events from other events that may be similar but not identical.
Objectivity n.: referring to events that are observable and measurable, either directly or indirectly; and
Accountability n.: observing and measuring events in a way that is verifiable and can be made public.

Can there be such a thing as an apolitical political system? Yes. George Washington believed so.

How would a nation governed by an apolitical system look? How would it function? A detailed description appears in the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.

“Every nation has the government for which it is fit.” -Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)

No matter how appealing and desirable, politicians will fight such a system. Lawyers will fight it. Bureaucrats will fight it. Ideologues will fight it. Profiteers from Big Government, both commercial and personal, will fight it.  Members of the Big Media will fight it. Sadly, a majority of Americans will fight it.

In the meantime, what about Sanders? He will not be elected.

His female counterpart — the documented, ruthless lawyer-criminal, Hillary Clinton — may be if she’s not indicted firstly. Most likely, she’ll bring with her more of the same, socialistic drift in domestic policies and blatant incompetence in foreign policies that we witnessed from her lying, scheming husband, who allowed the North Koreans to develop nuclear arms and the Chinese to buy our technological secrets.

What about Trump? Big Politics and Big Media consistently have underestimated his appeal. All one can say is that, should he become President, no one, including Trump himself knows the consequences, but consequences there will be.

Maybe, he’ll be better than he seems. Maybe, he’ll rise to the office once occupying it. Then again, maybe he’ll be just Trump.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

SOME CALL IT TYRANNY

Monday, January 18th, 2016

NEWS FLASH! The Wall Street Journal has banned any reference to this site in posting comments. During this month until the ban some days ago, more than 160 readers of The WSJ linked onto this site.

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

If you live in China, would you feel affrighted to publish a criticism of a governmental agency with which you have direct dealings? Would you worry that its bureaucrats might retaliate against you, inflicting significant harm? If so, you live in that which some call tyranny.

If you live in Cuba, would you feel affrighted to publish a criticism of a governmental agency with which you have direct dealings? Would you worry that its bureaucrats might retaliate against you, inflicting significant harm?  If so, you live in that which some call tyranny.

If you live in North Korea, would you feel affrighted to publish a criticism of a governmental agency with which you have direct dealings? Would you worry that its bureaucrats might retaliate against you, inflicting significant harm?  If so, you live in that which some call tyranny.

If you live in these United States of America, would you feel affrighted to publish a criticism of a governmental agency with which you have direct dealings? Have you ever felt affrighted for any reason by any potential for arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious retaliation by governmental bureaucrats for actions by you that are legal and constitutionally protected? Have you ever worried that governmental bureaucrats might retaliate against you, inflicting significant harm?  If so, you live in that which some call tyranny.

Consider a set of laws in a participatory republic based upon a written constitution. The laws in question represent the inescapable consequences of a problematic ratification of a constitutional amendment that allowed the creation of a powerful agency of the central government — an agency empowered to do the following:

1) Review all your financial holdings and transactions without a search-warrant issued by a judge in a court with appropriate jurisdiction — a search-warrant based upon “probable cause”  as demanded by a fourth amendment to the constitution.

2) Seize your banking account without approval of any court having appropriate jurisdiction and without prior notification of you, the account-holder, as demanded by a fourth amendment to the constitution.

3) Make unsubstantiated allegations of guilt against you then demand that you prove your innocence despite a fifth amendment to the constitution.

4) Make criminal allegations against you without any statute of limitation attached.

5) Concoct a set of often contradictory, continually-changing regulations composed of more than 70,000 pages of text incomprehensible to the average citizen, requiring paid assistance from a specialized preparer of continually changing, annual forms — forms demanded that you file under penalty of fine and imprisonment — then deny you privileged communication between the preparer and you such that the preparer acts as a policing agent for the government paid by you.

6) Offer you free assistance in answering your questions but deny responsibility for the truth and accuracy of the answers provided, leaving you liable for its mistakes.

7) Force you to hire an expensive lawyer to appeal to a board composed of governmental agents should you appeal an adverse decision by a governmental agent regarding the form that the government compelled you to file. If said board finds against you, force you again to hire an expensive lawyer in order to appear in court, should you wish to appeal further that adverse decision. If the government wins, too bad for you. If the government loses, again too bad for you … no reïmbursement of your legal fees and court-costs. Even if you win, you lose.

8) Acquire a documented history of individuals, groups, and companies that have criticized the agency or the politicians in power then persecute those individuals, groups, and companies in violation of published restrictions upon the agency. Whenever such misdeeds are discovered, initially deny falsely that of which it truly is guilty then, even when proof against it falls beyond reasonable doubt, escape further investigation and prosecution of the offending agents protected by the governmental agency charged with said investigation and prosecution.

Well, you need not expend much effort stretching your imagination. Simply think of three, little words that strike fear into the heart of every productive citizen.

“Every nation has the government for which it is fit.” -Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)

Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.”

So it has been. So it is. So it will be … unless you change it. How? Therein lies the question.

” Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” -Matthew 7:7

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.