Dissatisfaction with Congress reflects anger towards warped political parties
Special interests and elitist agendas dictate the character of both national political parties leaving Joe and Jane America no where to go. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Monday, April 26, 2010
Congress has received its worst approval rating despite one party control of all the levers of power, and passage of national health care. But is the anger at Congress focused solely on Democrats? I think not.
Both political parties have moved away from a populist American base. Instead the two parties have been purchased by special interests hiring them to act as their lawyers, lobbyist, and guardians in the great democratic sand box known as Washington, D.C.. Whether you are Gay, or Jewish, the NRA or a women's right group, you have purchased a share of one or both national political parties. And these share holders are not just American, they are international and are interested in Wall Street, American foreign policy, American energy exploration and development, space, Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
Illegal immigration is merely one aspect of the problem with America's porous borders. Health care, social services and incarceration costs for illegal aliens is only a fraction of the cost of international influence within the United States. Illegal drugs and international investment and ownership of American corporations are major influencers of American policy. Globalism has not just neutered American culture it has robbed Americans of their ownership of American business. CEO's of American Corporations are not solely interested in American problems or issues, or American solutions. Their focus is on earning profit, where ever that profit might come from.
The political parties, both the Republican and the Democrat are manipulated and controlled by large special interests ranging from the Catholic Church to international unions, both private and public sector, to international investors. What Americans wants must be squeezed into the party's platform somehow for election purposes.
America needs a new major national party. This new party must have strong ideological litmus tests which reflect purely American values and interests. This party must be founded on the Christian Bible, a traditional interpretation of the US Constitution and American history, and a solid understanding of capitalism. This new party must embrace America's original political model of a republic of Republics. (Originally, the Founding fathers from the 13 original Republics or colonies created a central republic.) It must embrace obvious nationalistic concepts like English-only, the traditional family, capitalism..
The Democrats are a complete failure with modern socialism and atheism. But the Republicans are no better with their weak internationalist globalism. Regardless of the outcome in November 2010, I believe American disgust with our government will continue unless a new political party is created to replace one or the other of the two existing parties.
Secession may surface as the only American solution if something is not done immediately to retake the American government for Americans.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl 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.
Please convince me that the so-called "Religious Right" is NOT a large special interest group. I am definitely not convinced. They are different indeed than the women's rights and gay and lesbian special interest groups, but only in ideology and value systems. Other than that, they are exactly the same when it comes to lobbying Washington D.C. And the RR is an extremely powerful group that those in D.C., who have any sort of brain that is, keep very close eyes on.
When you say that you believe that a new party should emerge that is founded on the "Christian Bible" and that has strong ideological litmus tests that reflect purely American values, what does that look like? What do you mean by that? Which Christian doctrine should this party use to interpret the Bible? Baptist? Methodist? How about Presbyterian? How will this new party govern and will they be able to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution?
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-27 10:47:31
The Democrats are a complete failure with modern socialism and atheism
"Atheist" democrats is a modern myth. There's just as many atheist republicans and even more in the middle. It's not even completely true that democrats and the left side of American politics is free from strident, quasi-fundamentalist religion. There is a very strong hyper-religious demographic within the "democratic" side of US politics.
But it does lead to the fundamental - some would suggest "fatal" - flaw in the democratic party: it tries to be all things to all the people they consider "theirs" and "worthy".
Which includes minorities. And those minorities are not uncommonly religious, and many are very religious.
The Religious Left is just as strong and pervasive as the Religious Right - though almost no one wishes to acknowledge it. Usually they hide it beneath racial sub-issues.
Why is this a flaw in the democratic party? Because they have to cater to those who are indeed atheist and don't want religion anywhere due to their deliberate misreading of the 1stAM, but they also have to cater to the likes of Jesse and Al who frequently turn the issue du jour into a revival of sorts.
You never see the anti-religionists criticising Jesse Jackson over his invokation of god in housing discussions, or foreign policy spats; but whenever a republican mentions god...? you can be sure that the excrement will be tossed directly into the rotating wind-mover.
Similarly, you don't see anyone criticising the Religious Left for their steadfast disapproval of same-sex marriage. Only the Religious Right.
Some studies I've seen suggest that more individuals on the Religious Right are more likely to break with the institutional views than the strict Baptists that America's blacks tend to be, or the stricter Catholics that America's hispanics tend to be.
I believe your vision for a 'religious' third party would be untenable as there is no 'religious' view that everyone can agree on under the best of circumstances. It would degenerate rather quickly into Monty Python skits of the Ladies Auxiliary re-enactments of the Battle of Britain.
Interested & Catholic. First, thank you for your comment. Second, if I knew how to respond to you directly, through email or whatever I would...but I don't. So I will respond here. Absolutely the Religious Right is a special interest. No arguement here. Your question about which doctrine would they follow...is perfect. Does it matter? Which Christian doctirne supports pornography? Gambling? Drug use? They key anwser to this is that God, a Christian God would move to the center of the discussion instead of being excluded! And with respect to Christian influence on social issues..like housing for example. Well, the basic Christian answer would be the need for citiznes to live Christian lives, helping voluntarily through their church the needy. Has the Great Society reduced poverty? Nope. Has it eliminated the desperate poor ? Nope. What it has done has relieved a large segment of the American public from living a Christian life by allowing them to say...hey, that's the government's job..they tax me, let them do it. America was not intended to be Europe - West. It was intended by the Founding Fathers to be a place where our Christian faith and individual liberty shaped the nation...and until 1860, it did. I am open to discussion...I believe open discussion improves things... We no longer discuss...we yell, and look for sound bites. Not meaning you, your thoughts and questions were well thought out. Mark
Thanks for responding to my comment and for adding further comment of your own. I must reply to your question about whether it matters which Christian doctrine a third party would follow. I happen to think that it would matter a great deal to a lot of people actually. You are correct in asking which doctrine would support pornography and drug use (I don't include gambling here because some folks would consider a church Bingo Night fundraiser as an activity that supports gambling, which creeps into the ridiculous territory); however, as ridiculous as the idea is that some old folks playing Bingo constitutes romping in the Devil's playground, it is a good example of just how different some Christian doctrines are and how perfect was Ross's example of the Ladies Auxiliary Battle of Britain re-enactments. He is correct in that there is absolutely no religious (not even Christian) view upon which everyone is going to agree. As difficult as it is for the current members of Congress to get anything done, it would be the same issue for representatives from different Christian denominations.
For example, there are Christian denominations that consider any consumption of alcohol to be a sin, whereas some doctrinal teachings permit alcohol consumption in moderation but consider only drunkenness and over-indulgence to be the sin. There are those denominations that consider homosexual lifestyles to be a sin and others that permit homosexual ordination. Some Christian denominations permit the use of oral contraception while others do not permit any form of birth control other than natural family planning methods.
What happens when these legislators are faced with issues of birth control, homosexuality, gambling, or any of the examples that you listed? I can guess. They would be so busy arguing about doctrinal differences that they would never get anything done. Sound familiar?
You gave the example of housing and that the basic Christian answer would be for the need for citizens to live Christian lives helping the needy with volunteerism through their church. Are you talking about collections? Habitat For Humanity? What? Understand that I get the basis of what you are saying, that good Christian people would obviously be more than willing to help their fellow man in need. But what if it's not enough? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that welfare has done anything but hurt this country, and the needy people in it; but I'm not sure I see just how putting this new Christian party in place is going to fix all of the issues. You seem to think that, if these wise and Christian people were in charge, everyone would follow suit and behave as Christians. Yes we can pass laws and even work to enforce them, but my experience is that you cannot legislate morality from the bench, even though I do believe that is what has been going on for awhile now. If you think that swinging completely the opposite way is going to solve it, I think that you would be disappointed.
The only thing that is going to fix anything is this country is if people wake up and realize that how they spend their money and their time is what will make the difference. Don't give your money to those whose ideologies you don't support and that will go a lot further. It requires a tremendous amount of sacrifice, however, which is where I believe people typically fail.
And btw, I'm not sure we want to go to a society where homosexuals are jailed for being homosexuals and bars and taverns are closed down because some folks don't believe in drinking. I believe that the way that people spend their money is what drives any culture. Stop the money and you stop the activity. Too many people support activies like professional sports that are riddled with drug abuse, gambling, pornography, and human and animal abuse all the time. Do you advocate outlawing sports? My guess is, I doubt it. However, there are lots of folks who just really hate that pro sports have become so corrupted; and yet, they spend their hard-earned money and who knows how much time supporting the very things they hate (every Sunday and Monday night, for example). And the system itself is pretty corrupt I'd say. Reinstating someone like Michael Vic is a really bad idea, don't you think? Some would say he "paid his dues." Did he really? I'd say he is more likely being rewarded for behaving badly. I'm not saying that he should rot in jail (although I wouldn't have a problem with it) but reinstating him only to allow him to make more millions is poor judgment at best. But people love them some football, eh?
But I digress a bit. My main point here is that I do not believe that a third, fourth, fifth, or tenth party is the answer and especially with the idea that all Christians are going to be able to agree on anything. It's just too good to be true.
Oh and I cannot imagine a world without Monty Python, can you?
