The Oligarchy of the United States of America

Our country has trapped itself in a rut. For too long it has accepted a two party system as politics as usual, and politics as usual has achieved little but to create problems in the name of politics.
Politicians have a way of perceiving a problem and presenting it to the public, to make them believe there is a problem. They then explain how they would solve the problem they created, usually by throwing money at it. This creates the additional problem of how to obtain the money with which to throw at the problem. That means more taxes, fees, or laws which enable the government which these politicians control to confiscate property that it may sell for more revenue. No government at any level will ever have enough money to keep itself growing in power and influence.
This is politics as usual under the two party system. Both parties have one thing in common--the belief that government should be operated from the top down, and that the general public and those who conduct commerce, should be controlled by that government. Both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that the Federal Government exists for the good of the people, and that the government will decide what is good for the people.
This has created an oligarchy--a government of the many ruled by the few. This is a far cry from the intent of the Constitution, that set up a Republic in which individual rights were not to be governed by laws that were outside the constitutionally established rights of the government. The Rule of Law, as applied by the Constitution meant that the weak would be protected from the strong, and that the individual right to person and property would be protected from trespass by others. The role of the Federal Government was basically to solve disputes in commerce between the states, and to protect the sovereignty of the United States and of each individual state. State law had precedence over Federal law, as the smaller government of the state was more able to meet the needs of its people. This was because each state was divided into representative districts, representing communities or small groups of small communities, comprised of individuals who would elect the person they felt would best represent them in the state assembly or legislature.
Each state's assembly or legislature would elect two senators to the Senate House of Congress of the United States, while Representatives to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States--the number of which depend on the population of the state, determining the number of federal districts--were elected by the voters in each district.
The President was elected by the voters in each state. Electors, also numbered according to population, would cast the actual ballot for the winner of the election in each state. This was done to offset a popular national vote that would give no voice to the states smaller in population.
This was by no means a "democracy" where each person gets one vote in all matters. Democracy's tend to destroy themselves, because there is no rule of law to protect the minorities, or to provide the system of checks and balances of a republic.
That is the basic idea of what we have for a government in the United States, but the major parties, the Democratic and the Republican, have hijacked this system to the point where they decide who the candidates for the Senate, the House, and the Presidency should be. They decide what issues are important to the voter, and what issues their party will represent, which usually has little relationship to what the voter thinks is important.
As we have seen in the current Congress, the members of each party represent the beliefs of their party rather than the beliefs of the individuals who elected them. That is to say, even if a representative drafts a bill that would benefit those who elected that person to office, and the person is a member of one party, the members of the other party would automatically strive to block it because it is contrary to the position of their party.
If one party thinks that commerce is important to the strength of the Republic, and the well being of the people, the other party will automatically oppose commerce. A very good illustration of this could be seen in a recent Democratic party debate, where one presidential nomination candidate criticised another candidate for being associated with Wal-Mart, thus identifying her as being in league with the opposing Republican Party. Why is this a bad thing? Don't the Democratic Party politicians believe in helping the poor? Hasn't Wal-Mart given hundreds of thousands of jobs to people who lived where there were no jobs for them? Hasn't Wal-Mart made goods available to people who could normally not afford those goods?
But that is wrong, according to the Democrats, because it is an individual corporation that is helping the poor, and the Democratic candidates should be against individual corporations because the Republicans support individual corporations. The Democratic candidates believe that helping the poor is a role that the Federal Government should be involved in.
The major parties have created two large voting blocks in which there is no gray area, only black and white. They strive to represent us by controlling how we behave in everything from what we eat to who we sleep with. Each block has it's own ideas of how and where to exert this control, but the bottom line is that they represent those ideas. We are being ruled by a few elitists who call themselves politicians, but they represent the political party to which they belong, not the views of those who elected them. If the voter doesn't agree with those views, they will tell the voter what they think he or she needs to know. The political parties can't control what we do unless they control what we think, so they make sure they tell us what to think. Whatever happened to the Republic?
It has been replaced by the Oligarchy,

No Comment

Congress or Community?

It is a basic tenet of Libertarian philosophy that the best government for the smallest community is the smallest community. In the wake of the tragic California wildfires, we are seeing the truth of this belief in the evacuation centers, such as QualCom Stadium. In dealing with the misery of losing property and belongings, and of being displaced, we see a wonderful example of the human spirit and the power of the community coming together.
When a crisis arises in a community, it is human nature that the members of that community pull together, to help each other out. This is what happened at QualCom, in San Diego. Clowns and pets entertained the children, and people went out or their way to give children crayons and paper or coloring books to keep them busy, and to help lift their spirits.
The atmosphere was described by one reporter as being like a "street festival." People were helping people keep their minds off of their predicament, and spreading friendship, sympathy, and empathy. The citizens of the community took personal responsibility to do their part in making sure everybody found as much comfort as possible under the circumstances.
It wasn't a government agency that donated food, clothing, water and other items of need. It was that "evil corporate slavemaster," Wal-Mart/Sam's Club. Not only did they deliver goods to all of the evacuation centers, but they also donated one million dollars to the Red Cross for relief operations.
Nor was it a government agency that thought about the needs of the pets. Petco, another "Capitalistic oppressor," sent truckloads of pet food, snacks and medicine to the evacuation centers, ensuring that the beloved companions of the displaced families were taken care of as well.
Not to say that FEMA and the State of California didn't step up. Even while Senator Barbara Boxer was complaining that the War in Iraq prevented sufficient aid from being given where it was needed, California National Guardmen were being reassigned to State duty from their posts on the US-Mexico border, to aid in the firefighting and evacuation effort. FEMA obviously learned lessons from its mistakes during the Katrina disaster and was very efficient in implementing and coordinating the emergency actions operations. The day after Boxer blamed the forest fires on the Bush Administration, as any good Democratic Party politician should do, she ate her words, saying that the manpower and equipment available to the State of California was "sufficient."
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to do his part in helping the victims of the disaster by declaring that the wildfires, which have been fueled by the "Santa Ana" winds every year in the history of humankind, were caused by global warming, and that he would make sure that Congress would pass legislation dealing with the issue. This did give some comfort to those who refuse to admit that it may not have been a wise choice to build or buy a home in the fire prone area, for now they can blame their poor judgement on the natural cycle of the warming and cooling of the Earth. Even if we assume that industrialization is responsible for the acceleration of the natural cycles, Senator Reid is fifty years too late in promising legislation that, even if enacted this very minute, won't do much to help those who lost personal property and jobs in the fires. One might ask Senator Reid if it might have been a better idea to offer tax incentives to energy companies that research alternative fuels and energy, rather than taxing them out of the money needed to conduct such research.
When offered a choice, when needing help, between going to Congress or going to our neirghbors, the answer seems fairly obvious. The government has never given anybody the help they need in times of crises.

The Dilemma

The Democratic Party has spent so much time politicising the Iraq War, they find themselves in a bit of a quandary. General Petreaeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, is due to report to Congress, next week, on the progress of the reinforcement strategy in the conflict. It is expected that there will be good news and bad news.
The good news will most likely be that the "surge" is working; Anbar Province, an Al Qaeda stronghold less than six months ago, is nearly cleansed of the insurgents, the Iraqi military is stepping up and is more able to carry out operations on their own, and violence in Baghdad has declined over the last six months.
This good news is bad news for the Democratic Majority in Congress, and they are already planning ways to spin it, as pointed out by Libertarian radio personality Neal Boortz.
Boortz reports that, if there is good news, the Democrats will spin it as being "Bush's report," and therefore compromised. They will embrace and emphasize the bad news--that the Iraqi Government isn't meeting its benchmarks--using it as an excuse to surrender. There are other Democratic members of Congress who will say success means we can pull out of Iraq, now.
The sad part is that many of these politicians understand the need for success in Iraq, but they have dug themselves into a hole filled with denial and ignorance. If they don't understand the need for success, they haven't been listening to Al Qaeda leaders who have said that Iraq is the main battleground for Al Qaeda. They do not understand that victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq is important, not just to Iraq and America, but to the entire region.
Michael Ledeen, the author of The Iranian Timebomb, points out in his book, and explains in his blog, that the dangerous and deadly Iranian Supreme Council can be overthrown from within Iran, much like what happened in the Soviet Union, unless we fail in Iraq. Failure in Iraq will be touted as a victory by the Iranian mullahs, and regime change there will be much harder. If a regime change without war can be effected in Iran, it will prevent a future war over Iran's nuclear weapons, and, possibly, nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran.
Success in Iraq is important, because it will show the people of Iran that they can trust the Americans for help, rather than seeing us as cowards and quitters, as the mullahs characterize us.
But the Democratic politicians won't acknowledge this. Nor will they acknowledge that, if the US leaves Iraq prematurely, that there will be millions of Iraqis killed, that there will likely be a much more widespread war in the region involving Iran and Saudi Arabia five to ten years down the road, and that the entire world would be cut off from the oil resources of the region.
The Democrats know that history will hold them responsible for the disaster, which is part of the dilemma they face. They cannot answer such questions as "how will we react to the Iraqi genocide," or "how will Western civilization survive without Middle Eastern Oil," or, even, "how do we prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb?"
Like it or not, the future of the world depends on what happens in Iraq. Everything is tied to that conflict. It is time that Congress should stop politicising the war and get on with the issues they really need to work on. Otherwise they can only dig their way in deeper.

Responsibility?

To the Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
You once again denied the Senate a chance for a yea or nay vote on the confirmation of John Bolton, even after he seems to have passed an audition of sorts. Are the Honorable Senators hoping that there will be someone nominated for the US Ambassador to the United Nations position who will be more effective and efficient? Or are you happy with a UN that won't take action unless there is something in it for the officials, such as the Iraq "Oil for Food" program? Perhaps, you only want to distance yourselves from what you perceive as a symbol of "the Rumsfield Era?"
After all, you are politicians, and a politician's job is to do what it takes to get elected at the next poll. To hell with national security, or solving international problems that affect the entire world. To hell with the starving and dying people in Darfur, if the plan for their redemption comes from the Bush Administration. Bush isn't popular, so you want to get as far away as possible from any association with the Executive Branch.
If you cannot find a person to fill the post who would be as effective as Bolton has been, will you be accountable for your actions? How heavily will the guilt of doing nothing to prevent the genocide of millions of people weigh on you? Do you have somebody in mind that can get UN action through the UN Security Council, concerning North Korea or Iran? Or are you prepared to accept the guilt of the annihilation of millions of Israelis, Lebanese, and Iraqi Sunni Muslims? When only people with six-figure incomes, like yours, can afford to operate a private vehicle, will you take responsibility for the energy shortage caused by the shutting down of traffic from the Persian Gulf?
Of course, John Bolton isn't single-handedly responsible for preventing all of that, but he has been successful in bringing about action by the UN in steps towards preventing such things from happening. That doesn't seem to matter now, but how will you feel when you don't get re-elected because your record shows that you are associated with the "Reid/Pelosi" era?

I Can't Respect Them, Because....

It's really rather funny, but the laugh is on us. It must be true that politicians think we're stupid, and they are making it pretty clear. The Congressional candidates who stood for surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan did not get elected. Ned Lamont, the Democratic Senatorial candidate from Connecticutt, ran on the platform that the US should withdraw its troops immediately. He was defeated by Senator Joseph Leiberman, who believes that the US should not leave until the Iraqi government is capable of providing security for its own country.
Patricia Mckinney, the Georgia Congresswoman who ran not only on the platform of surrender, but on impeachment of the President, didn't even make it past the primaries. Congressman Murtha, who has made his pro-surrender stance clear, ran for House Majority Leader, and was voted down by his Congressional peers in favor of Congressman Hoyer, who is against immediate withdrawal.
Now Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House elect, along with New York Congressman Charles Rangel, seem to be in denial that Abu Ayyou al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq has recently claimed to have 16,000 armed troops in that country. They keep speaking of insurgents, without mentioning that there is a sworn enemy of the non-Muslim world with an active fighting force in Iraq. Pelosi, Rangel and others must be hoping that either we didn't hear or that we forgot about al-Masri's statements. They think we're stupid.
Nobody is saying "stay the course," in the sense that we keep doing what we have been doing. We all know that a change in tactics is necessary in Iraq in order for us to be able to withdraw from that country without surrendering to al Qaeda. Most Americans, over seventy percent in some national polls, know what a disaster it would be to leave an unstable Iraq behind. We know that another country in which al Qaeda could gain strength and develop weapons would lead to an even more dangerous war upon our own shores. We know that a failed government in Iraq would leave that country as a deadly battlefield for other countries in the Middle East. We know that anything we do that looks like surrender to the enemy will only strengthen the propaganda value and the incentive of that enemy. The leadership-elect of the new Congressional majority sees the last election as a mandate to withdraw immediately from Iraq--they are either ignoring the information that most of us know, or they think we're stupid.
General Abezaid, the commander of US forces in Iraq has called for more troops, but not to try to fight the insurgents and terrorist forces in that country, but to step up the training of the Iraqi forces. This is a good idea, if we provide the Iraqi security forces with more equipment and better weapons as well, and would hasten our departure from Iraq, without surrender. But there doesn't seem to be any dialogue along these lines among those who will constitute the new leadership in Congress. Their elitist attitude leads them to believe that they know more about military operations than the officers who are conducting the operations do. They think we're stupid.