[link edited for length]but can you really justify your position on Obama and McCain? The race card? really?
byab03onJun 18, 2008 4:05 PM PDT[link edited for length][link edited for length] 0 recs
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4075.html
Here's the response to the question above. By the way, I haven't written in a while so my prose isn't as sharp as it will be again soon (which is why you see lots of parenthetical expressions like this one). But the soul is still there. My suggestion is to read it as if it were spoken rather than written. It goes faster than you think.
Obama/McCain
Let me explain the Obama/McCain thing. I used those references for a couple of reasons. First, the race thing carried on the theme from the very beginning of the article about Obama's preacher. The point I was making, and it was a subtle point couched in strong language to create a reaction (unfortunately, it may have clouded the point), is that Americans are more concerned about what Barack Obama's pastor said than they are about the only thing they should be concerned about-is he qualified to do the job a President is elected to do?
What's the job he swears in to do on inauguration day? It goes something like this: "I swear (or affirm) that I will execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of my abilityPreserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America."
Because we're so caught up in being on the "winning team" we discuss soap opera stories (like race, wives, and meaningless comments) to give us an inclination about who's going to win that we don't discuss things that really matter-like how our freedom is slowly being eroded in order to make the people (the 'sheeple', I should say) feel more safe (from ppl like Josh Hamilton-you know, evil drug dealers, users, and the terrorists their behavior supports--at least according to some ads you and I paid for after 9/11).
When people like Obama talk about healthcare or grand plans, very few people ever ask, "What in the Constitution that he swears to defend would actually allow him to follow through on this plan?" Article 1 Section 8 is very clear on what the federal government can do. The 10th Amendment makes it even more clear that not only can they only do very limited specific things the people have empowered them to do--they Can't do anything else until the people consent to it by amending the Contract (Constitution) and granting them that power. I've written several earlier articles on this that are worth reading if you're interested.
The McCain "white flag of surrender" comment was about all of the primary debates I'm sure few people watched (but since the site where I write is more politically based, most regular readers would have gotten the reference). McCain constantly used this line when discussing why we would stay in Iraq for 100 years if we had to be there in order to not give the terrorists a victory in the first battle of the "War on Terror" and thus ties in to the idea of fighting another unwinnable war to keep us safe from an ideology, even if it means destroying America in the Process.
The war on drugs (as discussed in the original article) sounds good, but how do you fight a war on a chemical substance? It's a war on people and civil liberties. The war on terror is the same thing. You can't kill "terror." You can kill a lot of terrorists, but just like drug dealers, more pop up. Mainly because we are over there killing people in Islamic countries and the to be terrorists aren't exactly fired up about it.
If you are thinking, "You are such an unpatriotic bastard-blaming America for 9/11", you couldn't be further from the truth and may want to consider why it is that's the thought that automatically pops into your head. Just for the record I voted for Bush twice. It wasn't until last October I woke up from the political game and started educating myself. The internet is the last great unregulated bastion of information, but you can be sure that by writing stuff like I do, there is a tag on my ip address at Homeland Security and your site is being monitored as I write. If I'm declared an "enemy combatant" for using my 1st Amendment right to address grievances with my government, I could be stuck in Gitmo without charges and with no hope of being released. How is this possible? Because we are at war with "Terror" and my God-given, Constitutionally protected 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights have to be "balanced" with giving the government the power it needs to hunt down these "evildoers" in order to keep me safe (i.e. make me pay to stand in long lines at airports, confiscate my water and toothpaste, and miss my flights).
I'm not blaming America; I'm blaming the politicians in control of our government. I love America. And I can't sit idly by and watch America (and our God given, Constitutionally protected freedoms) be destroyed in the name of fighting an ideal that is only strengthened by our actions which are financed with the people's income and in our name but without our consent (it's not a coincidence that we have neither formally declared nor won a war since WWII-if you want to see what a real war declaration looks like, google WWII war declaration vs Germany, Italy, or Japan).
You nor I (unless you're a cabinet official or something) have never once made a decision to place bases in Saudi Arabia (one of the biggest things Bin Laden was pissed about-you can find this on the White House website). We've never decided to round up American Citizens and place them in Prisons without a warrant signed by a judge finding probable cause for that seizure, and subsequently denied that detainee/"enemy combatant"/American citizen the only right the founders thought important enough to include in Section 9 of the original non Bill of Rights part of the Constitution--the right of Habeus Corpus. And what is the justification for this? Things changed on 9/11. They sure did. If every terrorist in the world could fly, and they all decided to hijack all of the planes in America and fly them into buildings on the same day it would be tragic but the buildings could be rebuilt and America would still stand. Unfortunately, it only took 4 planes, 19 terrorists, and 3 buildings to destroy America by destroying the very thing that made us unique and subsequently great to begin with--our freedom.
We are playing right into the hands of our enemies, and Americans sit idly by like scared sheep while the wolves howl and accept what the government controlled media tells them about the war and why we're there. And the mediacomplies parrots the daily talking points it receives from the administration to the herds instead of performing their 1st Amendment mandate of being a government watchdog and thus protecting the liberty (not the security, the liberty) of the sheep. While playing right into the terrorist trap of invading countries without provocation and providing mountains of evidence that we are what they tell their recruits we are-a nation hellbent on occupying the Middle East, stealing the oil, and killing Muslims (which isn't true, but it would seem like it if you were an Al Qaeda recruit wouldn't it?), we've spent about $30,000 (and counting) per every man, woman, and child in America to invade and occupy a country that had no ties to terrorists, posed no imminent threat to America (even if they had WMD's, they had no way to get them here) and no hijackers from there on 9/11. Calling reexamining our foreign policy "waving the white flag of surrender" is akin to calling Josh Hamilton a "quitter" because he no longer uses drugs. If what you are doing is going to kill you, is a true friend (patriot) one who enables you (America) to continue that behavior or one who stands for you and who you really are no matter how much you protest, how drug addled and weak you've become, or how many times the casual observers tell the friend/patriot that they are wasting their time and/or makes fun of them for never giving up on you?
For brevity's sake, the reason I bash Obama and McCain equally is that they are both involved with politics. The jabs at these guys were really jabs at the low-brow, infotainment based discussions U.S. Citizens have when discussing politics and issues while failing completely to look beyond the issues and at the true underlying problems that politicians have proven inept at solving for decades.
Politics is about winning elections-which is obviously a very profitable business judging from the fact that people spend obscene amounts of money in order to be elected and the fact that the three wealthiest counties in the U.S. are the ones bordering D.C. Government, as Thomas Paine wrote, is at its best a necessary evil and when the people suffer under a government as grievously as they would if there were no government it's time to reexamine the role of government and the people controlling it.
Politics is complicated. Government is Simple. Both are by design. Politics bores the hell out of me, it's like watching a movie whose hook is a surprise ending for the 20th time. It was interesting the first time you saw it, but once you already know what's going to happen, all entertainment value is lost and you realize that you're just wasting a lot of time that you could be spending doing something more productive (unless the incredibly attractive woman you're with hasn't seen it ;).
I won't get into the details of this whole politics/government/parties thing here, but if you actually care to learn more about how politics are destroying our country and why, go to nolanchart and read an article I wrote on the subject. It is titled something along the lines of "Voting Based on your Beliefs: the Worst Super Tuesday Mistake." Then go read George Washington's Farewell address (I'm in the process of rewriting it in modern, colloquial English). You seem smart, so if you can make it through it you'll see that he warned about the rise of political parties coinciding with the destruction of freedom.
That's where the "kook" thing I wrote about Ron Paul in the original article comes into play. This was obviously (I thought) tongue in cheek. When someone actually comes along and discusses real issues, the major parties laugh him off the stage because if the people found out just how badly they'd been had, the parties would be in major trouble. It's not the Republicans or the Democrats-it's both and it's easy to see if you can get past the propaganda you've heard for so long. As Dresden James (whoever he is) is quoted as having said or written:
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
Sound familiar?
This Ron Paul "Revolution" thing isn't about winning an election. It's about taking America away from the 545 Federal Officials in Washington (536 elected, 9 appointed) who believe that simply winning a majority election or being appointed gives them the power to do whatever they want as long as it's couched in terms of doing what's "best for the country." Please reread what the President swears in to do: "what's best for the country" is not part of the description, what he swears to do--defend the Constitution and thus preserve Liberty--is ALWAYS what's best for the country.
Once the power is taken from the 545 geniuses in D.C. it will be returned to the 300,000,000 individuals so they can decide for themselves what's best for them. If they want the government to provide something, they make that desire known by amending their contract and empowering the government to do it--not by electing a particular party into office. If the people make a poor decision about what's best for them (like Josh Hamilton did after his wreck), it could negatively impact their lives and the lives of those around them. If the guys in DC make a poor decision, it could and does (see: $4/gal gasoline) adversely impact millions (even if the mistake is well intentioned and based on the best information available at the time).
I personally believe this well intentioned mistake to be the case with President Bush and the War on Terror since it's merits are based on the only ideology that was ready and waiting to explain the 9/11 attacks at a time the entire country was searching for answers-that ideology is called Neoconservativism. Most of what you believe about the War on Terror and its necessity are simply Neocon ideologies which have been repeated so often through the media they seem true: Our role as the sole superpower is to spread democracy because terrorists don't grow in democracies thus by spreading democracy we can defeat terrorism; we have to fight them over there before they come over here; 9/11 was a result of our being too passive in the 90's, the only language these people understand is force; you're either with us or against us, etc.-it's worth reading about Neocons if you get a chance-just wikipedia it.
So basically, there are three ultimate destinations for our great nation. The first two will be the result of continuing down the path we're on. 1. Socialism/Communism/Totalitarianism 2. A complete economic collapse (which actually precedes #1 as Marx predicted would be necessary before communism could actually work-it must be preceded by capitalism due to infrastructure requirements).
I personally like the third option: The Revolution and Restoring the Republic, Unleashing Liberty, and letting the American Spirit alive within each citizen but slowly being crushed do what it has always done--find a way. Even if it means using the little time I have to write articles that seem like they're bashing my favorite baseball player or the major party nominees for no good reason, I'm committed to option three. I'm committed to that option because I'm not a sheep; I'm committed because I'm an American in the truest, purest sense of the word; I won't look my grandchildren in the eye and tell them what America used to be like when it's not too late to help affect the change that will allow them to experience it, only better, for themselves.
I hope this answers your question.
Moreso, I hope you'll join us. Feel free to email me if you'd like.
www.campaignforliberty.com
Your Fellow American,
John Armstrong
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com
As always, unlike the NFL, any accounts of repostings, rebroadcasts, or even outrightplagiarism is not only allowed with the author's consent but encouraged to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
