The author's quadrennial overview of U.S. politics. by John Kusumi
(centrist)
Friday, October 31, 2008
Well here I am, writing my quadrennial message to America. There's great platform in my background, due to running for U.S. President as a teenager (1984) and launching the China Support Network for democracy in Mainland China (1989). Not only was I the first Generation X presidential candidate, but my scene brings to mind the student-led pro-democracy movement that was crushed by tanks, as Communist China's army mowed down civilians to clear Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989.
China's students of that year were the upstart GenX politicos of China; they and I have a record of challenging our political establishments to reform. With us, outside-of-the-box thinking becomes a frontal assault. It's twenty years later, and the fearful jellyfish of the establishment still regard our stand for reform as taboo.
Perhaps that's because the establishment can't handle "outside of the box" thinking. Heck, Wolf Blitzer displayed his mindset yet again recently, when Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin "went rogue" by frankly or bluntly speaking her mind. On The Situation Room (a television show on CNN, hosted by Blitzer), imagine if I appeared with a bullhorn: "Attention Wolf Blitzer! 9/11 was an inside job! Your faith in the government is quaint!"
Well, to Mr. Blitzer, I would have to add, "sorry to shatter your world." But my point was that the fearful jellyfish of the establishment can't handle outside-of-the-box thinking. That imagined bullhorn moment would be "off the reservation" as far as they're concerned. It's off the reservation because the establishment takes it as their job to explain the government, as if it's an upright thing with integrity.
Blitzer would have a hard time working with a narrative that finds the government to be riven with corruption and an instrument in the service of crime, if not evil. Meanwhile, I would quibble that evil is the right word to apply in that description. Which is to say that I accept the description, which Blitzer thinks is only for street level, and not for CNN's studio.
Recently, a guest on Lou Dobbs (another CNN show) noted that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. Yes they were, but there you have two more stories that are "off the reservation" to these media people. The media "refuse to get real," and so they are quaint, increasingly irrelevant anachronisms. Apparently, the owners of television networks think the number one job of TV is to baby sit. Blitzer and Dobbs are hired babysitters, although I also applaud Lou Dobbs for being "trade deficit aware."
Four years ago in my article, American Politics 2004, I said, "all that is predictable is that America has four more years of being screwed to expect." Ditto for this year. There's not much update, really, in my quadrennial article. But, I'm going to explain what's wrong with John McCain and Barack Obama, this year's two leading contenders for President. I will explain one thing that's wrong with John McCain specifically, and four things that are wrong with both politicians.
(For those keeping track, it's five strikes against McCain, and four strikes against Obama.)
Trade deficit awareness
What I find to be wrong with John McCain is that he is not trade deficit-aware. Saying that another way, he is trade deficit-agnostic, and I only want to support trade deficit-aware politicians.
In the 1990s, the United States was run by agnostics who thought that trade deficits were a non-issue. Doesn't money get recycled? Isn't there a grand balance that is kept by the international balance of payments? Isn't it true that "what goes around comes around," and it all comes out in the wash?--So, all business is good business--Isn't it "all good"? Well, that's what the agnostics of the 1990s thought, when they embraced a free trade system that structurally encourages trade deficits and violates the U.S. Emancipation Proclamation.
Shall I slow down to explain this more?--Okay, suppose that you buy a pair of jeans from China. You get the jeans, China gets your money. What you now have is a depreciating asset. That means the jeans in your closet will wear out. But, China's money will not wear out. What did China lose? A pair of jeans. What did China gain? Liquidity. Now, on the American side of the trade, what did we gain? A pair of jeans. What did we lose? Liquidity. The movement of money and liquidity to China is our trade deficit. America is hemmoraging liquidity. All of that money flowing from us to them is a transfer of wealth. The U.S. trade deficit approaches is near a quarter trillion with China, and approaches a trillion overall.
For those who need the simplest explanation, a trade deficit is when "we are getting poorer, and somebody else is getting richer." And this is what John McCain seems to be agnostic (unaware) about. In the year 2000, Congress passed the PNTR free trade deal with Communist China, and it could have been called "the Communist Enrichment Act of 2000." John McCain voted for it, and this served to enrich communists, dictators, tyrants, and thugs at the expense of the American worker, who now faces a decimated manufacturing sector amid a hollowed out economy.
So. I want a presidential candidate who is trade deficit-aware, and that's not John McCain. McCain has continued to endorse every free trade deal that the eye can see.
Flag on the election
To use a football metaphor, this of all years is the one when somebody should be throwing "a flag on the play." There's no referee to say, "Flag on the election! Roughing the voter!" The $850 billion bailout is an eye-popping tip-off to corruption in advance of the election, and the media will let these men smooth talk their way through a campaign like nothing's wrong. But prior to that, their FISA bill offered retroactive immunity to telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping. And prior to that, candidates who care about America should have called for impeachment. And prior to that, candidates who care about America should have called for a new 9/11 investigation.
These two candidates--McCain and Obama--are on the wrong side of all four issues.
9/11
What's their position on 9/11? They didn't see anything suspicious? Thus far, 9/11 is the crime of the century against the American people on our soil. The perpetrators should be brought to justice. Those calling for a new investigation include the families / victims and first responders--the actually-affected Americans. Should they be chopped liver around here? Or treated as such by our establishment? International law broken for war
What's their position on violating the UN Charter, the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, international law, the Law Of Armed Conflict, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? They didn't see anything? One and all are aware that the Bush administration lied us into an unnecessary war. Where's the investigation?!? Where are the impeachment proceedings?!?
This brings to mind a point. I endorse the candidacy of Cindy Sheehan, running for Congress against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Whether you are against the Tiananmen Square massacre and so against PNTR, or whether you are against the Iraq war, Nancy Pelosi did not deliver on the promise of her speakership.
US Constitution violated
What's their position on Americans' right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects? Warrants require probable cause, but the telecom companies didn't get warrants before participating in the Bush administration's spying on Americans. Apparently, McCain and Obama didn't see any violations of the US Constitution when they voted for the FISA immunity bill.
Lots of articles cite the fourth amendment, but for a refreshing change here is the fourth amendment itself--allowing readers to judge for themselves (and perhaps, to feel nostalgic for "old America"):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Wall Street "bailout" giveaway
And this bailout of Wall Street's guilty? That takes from the taxpayers and gives to the rich? It was a mugging, and both candidates, having voted for it, became muggers. After a bubble has burst, the $700 billion is not going to re-inflate the bubble. Big boys are supposed to be able to pull up their own socks, and tie their own shoes. But these big boys have tried to reinflate a bubble, or put toothpaste back in a tube. They got the Treasury department to help them on a fool's errand, and it's against the principles of free-enterprise. So, it was bad (a.) to take this anti-free market path; and (b.) to require taxpayers to pay for this un-American step!
McCain and Obama didn't see anything! I have just listed four forms of evil, and they did not raise their hand in opposition. In at least half the cases, they participated in promulgating the evil. (As for promulgating evil, it would be three strikes against McCain, and two strikes against Obama.)
And, America: For these four forms of evil, what is Wolf Blitzer likely to say? "Off the reservation, off the reservation, off the reservation, and off the reservation." He does a great job of babysitting. If only he were paid ten dollars an hour, then he'd be paid what he's worth. (And likewise for his counterparts at other networks, like Brian Williams.)
Ralph Nader
Here's another matter that's off the reservation, even though the Wall Street bailout should have sent everyone moving in droves to third party alternative candidates.
The news tries not to tell you about other candidates who are in the race such as Ralph Nader. In the face of the Wall Street bailout, everyone should be herding out of the exits from the two party system.
They won't tell you that there is a candidate with zero strikes against him. On all of the above issues, Ralph Nader has been on the side of the people--We the people. This should rightly be his big year, but TV networks are still trying to herd people into the box canyon of the two party system. No less, he deserves the vote of those who go to the polls on Tuesday.
My hopes
All of the above issues deserve to be "on the reservation." I have described the sellouts of the news media as "bent, craven, and depraved," and I stand by my assessment, largely due to what they keep off the reservation. Why have reservations at all? The mere existence of a reservation is like the existence of political correctness. It's the attempt to foist one-size-fits-all politics upon a diverse, pluralistic nation. It's an attempt to flatten the two party system into an essentially one party system. It's un-American, and it's against the tenets of journalism. Journalism suggests, "tell these stories," and reservations suggest, "do not tell these stories."
But in particular, I hope that trade deficit awareness will be on the reservation. If trade deficits are exposed for the harm that they cause, then rightly the U.S. will stop the gravy train for communists, dictators, tyrants, and thugs.
When that stops, it will be a brighter day for my friends--the Tiananmen Square student leaders. Can you imagine anything getting LESS coverage than Ralph Nader? I can. The Chinese democracy movement, the Falun Gong, the China Support Network, and in general the matter of human rights abuses in China. These matters have been getting less-than-Nader coverage.
Of course, you're hearing it from the former 18-year-old presidential candidate. I can glower at the establishment and say: "Don't make me come out there and get political."
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of John Kusumi only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
John Kusumi is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Consider these points. Your so-called "analysis" seems to overlook some positive points:
1) Barack Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He also taught CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. His educational credentials are superior and his judgment is sound.
2) Barack Obama has been scrutinized by magazines, newspapers, radio and tv commentators, other candidates, his opposition, political blogs, and the news media for more than 21 months. Books have been written both about him and by him, innumerable articles and feature stories have covered every aspect of his life – and his family – so that he has been thoroughly analyzed, discussed, and investigated.
3) Barack Obama has been in 29 national debates, televised and broadcast by very capable questioners, he toured all 50 states and several special provinces as he went through 53 primary elections so that his views on every issue that someone wanted to question him about were analyzed, discussed, and evaluated.
4) Barack Obama has put forth very detailed, comprehensive, specific programs on 26 different subjects from energy to poverty to the (so-called) war in Iraq. He discusses each program in detail, and spells out how it will be funded on his website.
5) Barack Obama has attracted and recruited very highly-respected and capable people to assist him in running for office and to serve in his administration when he is elected. These are people with a great depth of understanding and expertise about every subject that he will face as President, both men and women.
6) Barack Obama has energized new and traditional voters to contribute more money to his campaign than any politician in history, which indicates their support, confidence, and desire to have him serve as our chief executive.
7) Barack Obama has met with foreign leaders, military leaders, business professionals, and Congressional leaders about our country’s most troubling problems. He has discussed these issues with them, and offered his opinions as to how to improve them.
8) Barack Obama, as a member of the US Senate, has had to review spending priorities, budget allocations, and government policies for every kind of national issue from healthcare to bank reform to the (so-called) war in Iraq.
And, perhaps even more important than these other items,
9) Barack Obama has NOT voted or supported the misguided positions of the rabid Republican right regarding such issues as abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, original intent of Supreme Court justices, and the (so-called) war in Iraq.
I know that these points won't make ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE to someone who is already against Obama for other reasons ~ perhaps racial, perhaps envy, perhaps bitterness about the failure of your own candidate to have a chance in the election ~ but Obama is better EDUCATED, better SPOKEN, better INFORMED, better off FINANCIALLY, and better SUPPORTED by other people than any other candidate. He has LOTS of experience, he's been through LOTS of scrutiny, and he has LOTS of answers.
Vote for BARACK OBAMA! The RIGHT MAN for THIS TIME in our nation's history.
How did you run for US President as a teenager? Did you get on any ballots? Doesn't the constitution stipulate that you have to be 35 to do that?
International law, how is that truly binding? Why do you give a flying flip what the fascists at the UN think?
My Commentary:
You can't have personal/social liberties without economic liberty. You can't have economic liberty without personal/social liberty. If you lack either, the powers that be will be able to take the other away.
The very concept of limited government does not work if the government is not limited in all areas of life. A fortress is only as strong as it's weakest wall.
Take 'campaign finance reform' for instance. Whoever controls the money, controls the politics. If people are limited in what they can donate/spend/etc then power goes back to the hands of a few. The rest of our liberties suffer.
This debate played out between myself and some commentators in 1984. Reviewing my points, the following A-B-C list is three different matters:
(A) To be a candidate (B) To vote for any candiate (C) To take office as President
The U.S. Constitutional requirement is about item (C) only. The Constitution is silent about (A) and (B). Therefore, you have the right (A) to run for office (even if 18), or (B) to vote for any candidate (even if 18).
Substantiation for (A) is suggested in that, the FEC accepted the filing of my candidacy. And (B) is your right to vote. Do you feel that your hands are, or should be, tied? Are you under duress? The Constitution does not tie your hands, nor place you under duress in the choice of casting your vote.
This can lead into further debate, because under circumstances as above, there is the conceivable possible outcome that an 18-year-old would win. What then? --The 20th Amendment of the Constitution provides that if a President-elect and Vice President-elect do not qulify, then the Congress may decide who will act as President. There are no age requirements for such an "acting president."
So, in presenting my candidacy, I was running on that loophole in the 20th Amendment. We can agree that the scenario is untested; the nation has never elected someone who does not qualify. But, Arnold Schwarzenegger could base a candidacy on the same loophole. The test could come.
In 1984 itself, news reporters accepted my write up of the above. The Constitution's age 35 clause, while reported, was not a show stopper. The following example is actual news copy at the '84 alternative candidates' convention:
"John Kusumi, 18, of Waterbury, Connecticut said 'very few people could do a worse job as President than Reagan. Mondale is one of them.' He is making a serious effort to win the presidential race and says he has found a loophole in the U.S. Constitution that would permit a candidate under 35 years of age to win. Among the items on his platform is to 'balance the Federal Budget in his first year.' On the issue of nuclear weapons, Kusumi said he would 'check the nuclear arms race and reduce it.'
"The convention was viewed as a success by WUSB personnel. The media coverage was seen as 'phenomenal' by John Vernile, public affairs director for WUSB. Representatives from WNBC, WABC, CNN, INN, SPIX, New York Times, Newsday, Voice of America and several other local papers attended the convention."
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
