Corruptible

The two major political parties

2004-08-08T13:54:00.000-05:00

As I have stated previously, I am a Libertarian. Because my feelings on different political issues sometimes fall to the conservative side, and at other times fall to the liberal side, I have in the past "flip-flopped" between the Republican, and Democratic Parties.
During the 1992 debates between the Presidential Candidates, we heard from a variety of very different political viewpoints. One very brilliant speaker began to speak to my interests. On the most important subject one can inject into political discourse. Our Liberty, and the role of the Federal Government, as defined in the United States Constitution. That speaker was Harry Browne (the Libertarian Party's Candidate). It was at that time, I began to do some research into the Libertarians, and soon became a registered member of the Libertarian Party.

If you remember, the 1992 election was the election in which an enormous "grass roots" effort began to seek an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. The Nation began to show it's dissatisfaction with the two major parties, and a movement began to form around a man named H. Ross Perot. Perot was the first third-party candidate to make a noticable showing in the General Election along with Harry Browne(LP), and Ralph Nader(GP).

By the time that the next presidential election cycle came around, the control of the debates was already in the hands of The Commission on Presidential Debates, a bi-partisan corporation created by the Republican and Democtratic Parties. This "Corporation" took over the control of the debates in 1988 from the non-partisan League of Women Voters, and after the third-party movement of the 1992 election, put an end to open debates, in hopes that never again would a third-party alternative to the Democrats and Republicans gain a foothold in the General Election.
When so-called "grass-roots" influences take hold of an election, the stranglehold that the two major parties have on the administration of our government is threatened. So, the Republicans and Democrats have sought to stifle the free election process by limiting the debates to their two parties exclusively.

Lets jump ahead to the current Presidential Election, just months away. The Democrats have, for the last 4 years, cried "Foul" over the disenfranchisement of voters in the State of Florida. How dare either of the two major parties attempt to "play the disenfranchisement card"? When it has been the Republicans, and the Democrats who have disenfranchised everyone in this country who seeks an alternative to their Oligarchy.

Let me focus this Oligarchy.

Much debate (no pun intended) goes on in this nation, as to whether or not there is a difference between the Democrats, and the Republicans. Let me say, for the record. On the issues which seek to divide this nation, they have divvied up the pot to a 50/50 split (within the margin of error in the major polls). This Nation is evenly polarized. This works well for the two major parties. They can rest assured (for now) that it is a slam-dunk, that one or the other of them will most certainly be in control.
It is this smoke screen of issues that keeps us polarized. Issues which by the U.S. Constitution, do not even fall under the jurisdiction of the Administration, and often don't even fall under the jusrisdiction of Congress. Issues that are directly addressed in the United States Constitution. And if not, most often directly under the jurisdiction of the individual State. But yet, these issues are always in the spotlight. In the spotlight to keep us focused on fighting amongst ourselves, rather than focusing on what a mess the two major parties have created in this country. And turning our focus on them, and how to bring about substantive change. Change, by removing this Oligarchy from the equation.

On one hand, we have the Republican Oligarchy. Financed by the Corporate Lobby of the Wall Street giants, the NRA, Right to Life, the Christian Right, and every other Lobby, which is on the side of whatever their party platform on a major issue is. And the Federal Judges that they have put in place, to interpret the Constitution their way.
On the other, we have the Democratic Oligarchy. Financed by the Labor Unions, Trial Lawyers, The Gun Control Lobby, Reproductive Rights organizations. Gay Rights organizations, and every other lobby that has a stake on the other side of any of the same major issues. And of course, The Federal Judges that they have put in place, to interpret the Constitution their way.

The only change we see in government is which Oligarchy get's to spend the revenue generated in taxes, by us, the Collective.
When the Republicans have control. Corporate influences gain political power, and give themselves reductions in their tax burdens.
When The Democrats have control. Government Bureaucracies gain political power, and spend tax revenue on the administration of programs that never seem to get anything done past paying for administrative expenses.

Do we ever see substantive change, or a real decision made on any of these issues? No! And why? Because that's an end to the divide.

On 9/11 and the War in Iraq.
Both major party candidates voted for the War in Iraq because their respective constituencies wanted vengeance for 9/11. When we couldn't immediately bring in Osama Bin Laden, we needed a blood bath against someone. Someone Muslim. Both parties signed off on Iraq. Of course, because whether we despise racism or not, we wanted dead Muslims.
Now many see that it was wrong. But more correct is the idea that some don't require the amount of retaliation that others do. Now those people want the vengeance to go back to just focusing on Bin Laden.
At the time however. Iraq's failure to follow a United Nations Mandate was enough. It would justify the vengeance we wanted. And with the track record we had in Gulf War I, we thought a "Gulf War II" would be a cake-walk. However, it wasn't. The loss of American lives continues to rise, and we're stuck with it, unless the United States brings our Troops home without what they would consider to be a full victory.
Here's the catch. Has either major party candidate said they would immediately bring our troops home, and tell Iraq to take care of it's own business without the problem of the Hussein Regime. No!

The Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act is in direct violation of Constitutional rights concerning Privacy, as well as Search and Seizure, and authorizes Intelligence Agencies to conduct operations inside of this country against it's citizens, in violation of these Agencies' charters.
The Republican's Candidate maintains that this is needed in the interest of "National Security". The Democrat's Candidate tap-dances toward the opposing civil liberties issue. However, will not vow to repeal the act, nor make a statement in opposition to it's renewal.

Once again. The mention of the issues. Rhetoric concerning the issues. But no substantive change. It is this way on every issue we fight so hard for. To get our group in power with the aim to have "our issue" attended to.

It is easy to see this method in every major issue within this Nation. Always the argument. Never resolution. When Legislation is passed within this Oligarchy, all the strength of the Law is rendered impotent within the text of the Legislation. The only concrete parts of the Legislation end up being unrelated "pet issues" of the commitee members geared toward satisfying lobbyists who pay for contracts, grants, and loans. Unless of course. The titled Legislation concerns giving the Oligarchy more authority, or an increase in compensation for their so-called "service".

If change were to occur, the strategy of divide and conquer loses it's strength.

The United States Constitution was drafted, and ratified, as a contract defining the power structure of this Nation. With the bulk of power starting at the Local Government, and working it's way in decreasing authority toward the Federal Government. Yet, the two major parties, at the federal level, have turned this contract on it's head. Usurping authority, as well as controlling what are supposed to be the free elections which have the power to remove them.

Income Taxes

2004-08-07T22:08:00.000-05:00

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I am of the opinion that this system of amassing revenue is absolutely counterproductive to the spirit of "Liberty", as well as to the concept of equal treatment under the law. It is the vehicle of socialism, and "the welfare state". It has turned the concept of our representation, from one of a system of Part-time Citizen Representatives, to one of an unstopable ruling Oligarchy.

First and foremost. What sense does it ever make to tax productivity? To stifle the incentive of our citizens and businesses to make as much income as possible. Without the fear of being robbed of the fruits of their labor, at gunpoint, by a government which is supposed to serve them. Not vice versa. This income will, in turn, be circulated back into the economy, generating a need for more products and services. Creating the ability of others to prosper as well.

The concept of taxing consumption makes much more sense. For the citizen it would encourage the practice of saving. If we could save the income that we pay in taxes, we would be able to afford (on our own) many of the services that our government claims to want to provide. These services would be much more effective if driven by consumer demand as opposed to a bloated government bureaucracy.
Not all consumption, however, should be taxed. Most manufactured goods could most certainly be taxed. Especially entertainment and leisure items. But food items, and the staples of life, such as medications, should absolutely be free of taxes.
Businesses should not be taxed for raw materials. This would be an incentive to increase their labor force, to process the materials needed to manufacture their products, rather than to pay taxes on processed materials.

If we would simply hold our Federal Government to the bounds set forth in our Constitution, and mandate it to sell much of the property it holds in closed military bases and the like, to the private sector. It could easily be funded by excise taxes and tariffs on imported goods.

The difficulty that we run in to is our ruling Oligarchy. The self proclaimed elite of our society who amass their own wealth through the sale of legislation, government contracts, influence, and anything else those with deep pockets are willing to buy from them. If we take away this enormous source of income that drives the business of making law (each new law limiting or removing liberty), we take away their power to rule us, and put them back in the business of serving us.

A little about this "Blog".

2004-08-06T20:56:00.000-05:00

I'll make an attempt to post here as often as possible.
On this Blog you'll find my thoughts on many subjects. Some will undoubtedly be political opinions, as I tend to voice my opinions and perspective on that subject quite often. Just to let you know, my political affiliation is with the Libertarian Party.
My views, and suggested solutions to societal problems are sometimes considered Conservative, sometimes Liberal, and sometimes Moderate. It will always depend on the subject, or situation in question. My opinion, most often, depends on what the United States Constitution has to say on the subject. (with the exception of the 16th Amendment i.e. the right of the Federal Government to tax our income) I'm sure I will speak on that issue at length.
I will discuss the upcoming Presidential Election. Just for the record, I am a registered voter, and I will be casting my ballot for Michael Badnarik. You can find his website at http://badnarik.net. Mr. Badnarik was nominated by the Libertarian Party as our Candidate in the 2004 Presidential Election.

I will certainly discuss issues not in the political spectrum as well. As issues, brought to my attention by news services, move me to opine, I will surely do so. Events in my personal life might, or might not be discussed, and may be dealt with either directly or indirectly.
I will do my best to critique films I've seen, books I've read, as well as music, television, and journalism "events".

I hope you enjoy reading my perspective. I have configured this blog to accept comments. You may feel free to post a comment at any time by either logging in, or posting anonymously. If you choose not to register with the service that I use for this blog, I do ask that anyone leaving a comment, post a signature of some sort, and hopefully an e-mail address.

It's an all new "Blog"!

2004-08-06T00:21:00.000-05:00

Well, I've just started this Blog. I thought it would be a great companion to my website. I sincerely hope my friends (old and new) will use it, and enjoy it.
Here we go!!