Advertisements

Casting My Vote

I’m not a political expert and I’m not about to pretend to be, but this year’s Presidential election just makes me sad.  I felt similar in 2000; I didn’t want to vote for either Bush or Gore, choosing Harry Browne instead due to his views and promises.  I knew he wasn’t going to win, but I didn’t feel that Bush or Gore were the best choices and I don’t have the right to complain if I abstain from the election.  This time around, I don’t even have a Harry Browne to turn to.

There are over three hundred million people in the United States.  Nearly two hundred million of them are 21 years old or over.  Out of that two hundred million, there should be a fairly large number who are of the proper age to run for office, are natural-born citizens, and have the proper education and credentials.  Yet, out of all those people, we are given candidate choices that are sub par at best.  I was one who had faith in Obama and cast my vote in his favor in the last election, but my confidence in his abilities has wavered because he is either unable to do the job to the best of his ability due to checks and balances, or he doesn’t have the same vision he projected while campaigning.  As for the other options we’re given, I have zero interest in any of them taking up residence in the White House.

When I learned about our government in school, I felt proud that our country allowed the people to make such important choices in deciding who runs what.  The older I got, the less proud I became.  I do appreciate the structure, but at this point in time I don’t feel that it’s working the way it was originally intended.  Not due to the system being flawed (though it may be) but due to people being focused on power and influence rather than on keeping the country running like a well oiled machine.  The people out there who could make major differences are outnumbered by those who have their own best interests in mind rather than those of the masses.

With as many people in this country who are qualified and able to run for President, I fail to understand why we seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates.  We should be choosing between the best people available for the position, not the people who a select few groups decide is the best.  We shouldn’t feel this limitation in elections, knowing that either a Republican or Democrat will win, but rather feel that any of the candidates has a fair shot at the office.  We shouldn’t have good people go unheard just because they can’t pull in the money that Democrat X or Republican Y can pull in to fund campaign costs.  We should be choosing our President from the best of the best, and that is not what we are doing at all.

What sickens me further are the campaign efforts to sway the public vote one way or the other.  I should be hearing what Person 1 can do for this country to make it better, not why Person 2 is a lowlife and doesn’t deserve my vote.  I don’t care that Person 2 got a parking ticket last year, I want to know what Person 1 is going to do about the economic state of the United States.  Unfortunately, every time an election approaches, we are smothered in ads insulting the opponent, sometimes offering the opposing and better view of the person we are meant to vote for, but it is overshadowed by the trash talk.  What sticks in our minds is all of the negative, not the positive things the candidate can offer, and that’s simply not right.

I want to see things fair and balanced.  I want every candidate to get equal air time to state their views and address public concern.  I want all parties to be treated with the same amount of importance.  I want to be presented with the best this country has to offer for that office out of the many people who are qualified.  I want to hear exactly what each candidate has to offer our country without hearing nonsense about other candidate’s college days that has zero relevance to their ability to run this country.  I probably want the impossible.  At the very least, I want an improvement.  We seem to be getting worse and worse as the years go on.

Advertisements

About Jamie C. Baker

“Long time no see. I only pray the caliber of your questions has improved.” - Kevin Smith

Posted on August 29, 2012, in Life, News and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. There’s not enough room on the internet to store my comment JB. 😉

    Full Disclosure:
    I am a registered Independent. I am a Ron Paul supporter and voted for Ron in 2008. I support gay rights, I am pro-choice, I am pro-environment, not racist, an Atheist, employed in the private sector, Austrian economist, fiscal and monetary conservative, support a strong military but not a global one, raised in rural CT in a working class family, degreed, white, not poor, worked my way through school, beer drinker, social smoker, father, husband, son, brother, friend, dog-owner.

    I was only happy that Obama won in 2008 in that I thought it would put a fork in all the racist baiting that goes on in America. How could a black man win the Presidency in a country that is 73% white and 13% black otherwise? If the number of racists that we are led to believe actually existed, they would have all showed up on Election Day to make damn sure that Obama did not win. However, as it turned out, every white person who cared one way or the other did show up on Election Day to vote and Obama won anyway, so clearly, racism on a material scale, is dead. Are there racist individuals? Sure. Do they matter? No. Did Obama winning change the liberal’s constant cry of racism in America? Not a bit. So even the positive of the 2008 election did not work out for me.

    I was not happy that Obama won in that there was already a lot of vetting going on in the underground that his policies would be significantly socialist and pro-Big Government in nature. I could not vote for McCain either since he was as unappealing, useless and destined to be a failure as most Presidents turn out to be. Since I am a Jeffersonian (anti-Federalist) and believe in Austrian economics over Keynesian economics, Obama being in the White House was about the worst thing that could have happened to us fiscally and monetarily (the economic nuts and bolts of the engine of the country). I just sat back and hoped the damage would be minimal. I was wrong.

    I’ll try to be succinct (for me). I haven’t done a post on it yet, but so far, as I thought I would be, I am not happy with the Republican nomination in Romney and Ryan even though it could be seen coming a year ago (Romney).

    To me, in November 2012 the only person that will be elected is Obamney, since I can’t see any material difference between Obama and Romney on any subjects that matter. Sure people could opine about their differing views on gay rights, abortion…all the social issues, but the social issues at this point in our history don’t matter. Nobody is going to care about gay rights or abortion when 25% of the country is unemployed, every kid at McDonalds has a college degree and $80,000 in debt, inflation is rampant, and the standard of living is spiralling down. When it comes down to running the country, the nuts and bolts of an economy, they are materially the same animal. For me, that animal is called Obamney.

    My first caveat is that the Constitution forbids the Federal Government from creating laws about social issues, so gay rights, social welfare, abortion, etc… were never supposed to be part of the Federal platform. Back in the early days of our country there were two main parties, just like today (I mean to say that there are still two main parties, aside from that the similarity ends), the Federalists and as you can imagine, the Anti-Federalists. The former wanted the Federal Government to have a lot of power, and the latter wanted the States to have all the power. In this way, the States act as a check and balance on the Federal Government, preventing it from becoming too large and taking too much freedom away from the People.

    Remember that in the beginning, each State was its own sovereign “country” and only agreed to a central authority for a very few limited things if for no other reason than to just streamline some administrative tasks between the States. That was IT. That is also why the anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights before they agreed to that, because they knew what happens when you create a small central government to “help.” It gets bigger, and bigger and moves from helping, to controlling. It’s happened before. It’s why they left England. History repeats itself, ad nausea.

    There have been many different party names since then, but the sides have always been the same…Team A wants more central power and Team B wants less central power. But then something happened about 60 years ago…Team B decided to join Team A and now both teams wanted more central power, but for different reasons. They both wanted more control, more power, and more money, so they could each pander to their particular “fans.” But if that is the case, then why have two teams? Why not just one Team called Team AB. Somehow Team B must differentiate itself from Team A, have different “fans,” and so was born the social and religious issues at the Federal level that we all choose sides based on, when the real problem, the real issue, remains hidden – the issue that the Federal Government should not be involved in social issues at all to begin with and that social issues are being used by Team AB as smoke and mirrors to confuse us and make us feel like there is a difference between the teams just because they changed the colors on their flag, when in reality, the teams are exactly the same…TEAM BIGGER GOVERNMENT, TEAM REDISTRIBUTION.

    Suddenly Team B went from defending smaller government to defending God people, defending anti-gay legislation, defending unborn babies…all the crap that was never supposed to be part of the Federal charter, all the crap that the classic struggle between Team A and Team B had never been about before. These issues, Constitutionally, are left up to each State. The problem with this platform for Team B is that it is not believable.

    When Team A says they are going to tax the rich, raises taxes, and give the money to the “poor,” well, you can believe that they will because they’ve done it before and that is what they do and they do it well. Team A is credible.

    When Team B says they are not going to tax the rich, or raise taxes, but they are somehow going to give money to the poor also, well how the hell are they going to do that? If they don’t tax the rich and they don’t tax the poor then where are they going to get the money from? And then out come all the gimmicks about cutting government spending. But that doesn’t work either. 60% of Government spending is entitlements for “the poor” and the old and the sick, so you can’t cut those, well, not without street riots like when Greece tried to do it. Another 20% is the military and Team B never cuts military spending. So what is Team B really saying? That they will somehow close the deficit and reduce the debt by cutting every penny of the remaining 20%? That 20% is EVERYTHING else the Government does. Anyone can see that will not work, that that is impossible…so whenever Team B opens its mouth, it talks out of both sides. This makes Team B non-credible.

    If Team B returned to its roots, and opposed bigger government, ignored social issue platforms, promised monetary and fiscal reform such as returning to a gold standard or modifying or eliminating The Fed, it would at least be credible. If people don’t want that, if they still want Team A because they want the poor to get all the money everyone earns, then fine, at least Team B went down in flames with a credible argument…but when Team B just acts like Team A but with a plan that doesn’t work, they just look stupid.

    So my biggest EYE opening on reading your post was this…

    “…he [Obama] is either unable to do the job to the best of his ability due to checks and balances, or he doesn’t have the same vision he projected while campaigning.”

    To this I would say…Obama’s vision for America has not changed, and he could do a lot more of what he had planned for America when he was elected except, you are correct, the checks and balances are getting in his way. Specifically, the ones imposed on him in 2010 when Republicans took over the House in Congress. All this did was create a stalemate in Government, bringing the gears to a grinding halt with no side having enough power to pass much of anything.

    First, the checks and balances are there for a reason. We have three branches of Government for the exact reason that we do not want any one person, or branch, having enough power to do whatever it wants unilaterally. Obama has been quoted as saying that if Congress will not do what he asks, then he will do whatever he has to “on his own.” To me, this is frightening. Congress represents the People. We elect them to represent us. So I have a concern about any one individual that claims that his vision is more important than the Peoples, and overrides the vision of the People. That sounds like a King or a Monarch to me, not a Republic where the people make the laws. I mean, to put it in perspective, imagine if Bush had had unilateral control over the economy and social issues? Que horror! So everyone wants “their guy” to be the King, but not the other person’s guy ever to be King. Which is why we are designed to not have a King, but a system of checks and balances and a Congress, chosen by the People, and anyone who acts like a King is a threat to that.

    We also have forgotten what the role of President was during our Founding. The President was the BS job in Government. He didn’t do squat. The most the President did was attend foreign dinners and act as a representative of the U.S. to other nations. He had veto power but the People, via Congress, could override it. For the most part, the executive branch was the weakest branch of Government. This was on purpose. We had just left a Monarchy, nobody wanted a new one. That has changed. Now people look at the President as a Monarch, hindered by all these messy controls and rules that the Founding Fathers put in place to make sure we are not ruled by a King ever again. We have forgotten our history and why we are designed the way we are, and most importantly what our design was implemented to prevent from happening.

    To allow Obama unilateral control over the economy is to say that this one man knows more than the entire electorate combined, more than every business person, laborer, entrepreneur and skilled worker. From what Obama has done in his life, I don’t see any credentials that make him that smart or that experienced. Obama is often referred to as “a nice guy” and an “eloquent speaker” and I agree with both. But Obama’s vision for America is not the same vision as what most Americans have and absolutely not the vision The Founders had, which means to accept Obama’s vision is to reject The Founders vision. I am curious how many people would admit they reject the Founders vision.

    I encourage everyone to read, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza. Or if you are the Cliff Notes type of student, go see the movie currently in theaters based on this book called, “2016: Obama’s America.” It’s getting excellent viewer reviews. On RottenTomatoes, it gets a viewer score of 81% with an average 4 out of 5 stars. The critics are giving it 46%. However, I have never seen a high critic score on anything that was considered a “conservative” flick. For example, if you look up “Roger and Me,” a more liberal flick by Michael Moore on that same website, the critics score it 100% but the Audience only gives it 77% or 3.6 stars out of five, 4% points lower than “2016” while the critics are 54% higher. Things that make you go, “Hmmmmmmm.” Weird huh? Not that weird when you think about the reasons for it. I don’t care what anyone says, there IS a liberal bias in Hollywood and the MSM (Fox aside, which is biased the other way). I have just seen it too many times.

    In reading “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” about a year ago, it gave me insight into Obama. He’s not a bad guy. He’s not a tyrannical dictator, he simply believes that capitalism is a failed concept and that socialism, redistribution, equal results and not just equal opportunity, should be the new vision for America. He believes we should all work for the benefit of the collective, that personal gain or profit is detrimental to society unless it is allocated to those who need it the most and that all of this should be managed, regulated and enforced by the Government. He believes the United States is too powerful, has too much control in the world, and needs to be weakened (on purpose) so it is reduced to an “equal” in the world, and that is to say no more or less powerful than North Korea, Iran, China, or any other country.

    Personally, I agree that we spend too much on military, that we are in too many countries and that we don’t pay enough to our soldiers in consideration of the risks they and their families take. BUT, that is not the same thing as saying that we need to be weaker than other countries. We can be more powerful; more militarily advanced, and not have a single soldier on the ground outside of our borders. Obama wants the former, not the latter, where we are too weak to engage in battle regardless of whether we start it, or it is brought to us. The only problem with this is that there are people in the world that want to see us destroyed and even if we choose to not occupy or invade other countries, we do need to always be ready to defend ourselves. Obama would rather we enter all formal talks with other countries on our knees, than on our feet, so we are “equals.”

    Obama is not re-inventing the wheel; he is simply choosing the path that every soon-to-be-socialist country at one point chose to tread in the belief that it is possible to guarantee everyone the same results, where capitalism only guarantees the same opportunity. Capitalism guarantees each person the freedom to be whatever they want or fail trying while socialism guarantees each person something to be, without failure, but not the freedom to choose it. Obama’s vision is simply the latter and all his statements and policies since his election reflect that.

  2. By the way, I wrote that more like a post on my own blog, to your audience, not AT you, so to speak.

    Time for a Sam…its five oclock somewhere.

  3. I think in 2000 I either wrote in none of the above or more likely I didn’t vote ((as I was in the military and probably deployed…which in theory my vote would still “count” but…when the winner is declared before my vote even would be received…kind of what’s the point))

    on that note; in addition to none of the above I’ve written in elizabeth dole and I think another person…If mickey mouse were a living breathing and eligible for president entity..well I’d probably write him in..although Oswald would do better (Mickeys far less famous predecessor)

    OOOh and the last election…my vote didn’t even count..because my signature didn’t look like the signature on file…I never got that fixed because again..by that time the winner had already been announced and my one vote wasn’t going to change anything ((and for the other things on the ballot..what I wanted to pass seemed to pass…what I didn’t want to pass…also seemed to pass…so it was really like why bother verifying I am who I am…..it was all a ploy from the liberal army to prevent my vote against obama from being counted anyway 😀 ))

    you could always write in ron paul…unless somehow you disagree with his politics of liberty for all

    the system is not only flawed it doesn’t work….the electoral college is a crock of shit…imho..

    obama is going to likely win…I don’t see a mormon in the white house happening…although people seem to like his vice presidential pick…maybe HE should be the guy running on the republican card for president

    as to who I’m going to vote for….I’m probably not…I don’t feel like going through that trouble of your signature doesn’t look right we need you to re verify yourself as being yourself bs….my one vote have proven time and time again to make exactly zero difference…so I kind of don’t give a shit anymore……and I did the first few time I voted…I knew my vote didn’t mean shit…but I had more pride in my worthless vote anyway..lol

  4. I frequently here news about military ballots not being sent in time, or delayed for some reason. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but it seems pretty consistent. I could FedEx a soldier in Kabul a gallon of ice cream before it melted but the USPS can’t get the troops their ballots way ahead of time? I really hate that.

    I will most likely write-in Ron Paul. I can’t stomach voting for Romney or Obama, just like in 2008 when I couldn’t stomach Obama or McCain. Bush was a disaster. As I said, at least with Obama we could put an end to all the racism banter, but alas, that too has not come to pass. Now they blame the racists for wanting to remove Obama. The circus never leaves town.

    Ron Paul believes in some things that I don’t believe in. He doesn’t believe in gay marriage, and he is pro-life. Thankfully, none of that matters because he has stated time and again that the President, and the Federal Government have no Constitutional role in social issues. Therefore, as he has stated, his personal views and religion are irrelevant because those associated issues are not in the realm of the Federal Government and therefore he would not entertain legislation that was based on social issues, for either side of the position. He would refer all such matters to the individual states to decide, as it was intended by The Founders.

    Romney said he would establish a committee to study the possibility of reinstituting the gold standard. PSHAW! Yeah riiiiiiiight. How stupid are we? There are cobweb coated doors in crumbling Government buildings where committees on IV drips still meet to discuss the advantages of vacuum tube technology. That statement was a nothing more than a foul smelling, half-rotted, maggot filled bone tossed at the fiscal conservatives in hopes for some votes. A committee. PLEASE. The last committee that was assembled to study a return to the gold standard was during the Reagan administration and the final consensus was, “nah.” So if it didn’t work under Reagan, it sure as hell won’t work under Romney. What we are on now is just a fiat currency, or a non-gold standard, which allows politicians to print as much money as they need to promise stuff to their constituents and lobbyists. Why would a committee of politciians ever want to stop all that free money printing that they can use to buy votes? Let’s ask the fox to make recommendations on the security of the hen house.

    Nobody cares that the industrial revolution occurred while we were on a gold standard, that we fought and won WWII while on a gold standard, that the biggest increase in the standard of living of any human anywhere on the planet happened right here in the USA…on a gold standard, or that the dollar has depreciated over 90% since we went off the gold standard, that we have had more recessions and depressions of more severity and greater lengths since we went off the gold standard. But sure, assemble your committee, just make sure they have enough ping pong tables and 8 ball glasses.

    Meanwhile, we got Paul Ryan talking about making big cuts to Government. Sounds good. Oh, but wait. His big cut is to stop paying out Medicare benefits starting with people currently under 55 – sooooooo none of these cuts will happen for TEN YEARS. We don’t HAVE ten years. This overinflated balloon we like to call an “economy” is going to burst way before that so this is just more garbage coming out of the Republican arena because as I said, they have no plan. Since they want their cake and eat it to, they want to promise not to raise revenues, AND not to cut expenses, but somehow still LOWER the deficit and the debt. That is some wizardly NOTW math right there. Which means, EPIC FAIL. So what do they do? Just promise changes…tomorrow. Later. Manana. I’ll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today. They’re the Blimpy Party.

    My other thought is to just vote for Obama. At least I know what the Democrats are going to do, and as destructive as it is, at least the math works. Raise taxes, increase spending. The economy will still crash and form a nice big crater, but at least we will get there faster. The Republicans are just hell bent on kicking the can down the road waiting for some kind of financial miracle that will never come, while the Democrats are ready to drop the hammer and raise taxes, increase the welfare state, print billions of dollars, max out our debt to China and crush the free market to a singularity. The crash is going to happen one way or the other, so why should I vote Republican and have the band-aid pulled off nice and slow, and painfully, when I can vote Democrat and ram this train into the side of the mountain real soon. Then get to doing what needs to be done to rebuild the economy. So my first vote is a write-in for Ron Paul because he would actually fix the country, my second vote is for Obama because he would get us to the bottom faster so we can finally resurrect like a Phoenix from the ashes he would create, my third vote is…Mickey Mouse.

    • per ron paul; exactly. his personal beliefs are a side note to his politics….of course we all know how politicians often say things like that but follow it by trying to push their beliefs..

      I agree too with the see we’re not racist a black man is president thing (not exactly what you said I know)….and I think a vast majority of people who voted for obama simply of that reason are over it…doesn’t mean I think romney is going to win though either…

      I sometimes wonder if in fact our country is in worse shape than in the past or if people are just more aware of the state of things..but all empires eventually fall right…so the empire of the united states is not any different I guess

      • I agree that politicians say one thing, and usually do another. One of the most glaring is on Romney since he created a univeral healthcare system in Massachusetts and is now speaking out against the one Obama created. How is it possible for someone to speak so clearly out of both sides of their mouth, and still get votes from people?

        As to Ron Paul, he has one glaring difference. He has always voted along his convictions. He has never voted to expand government either fiscally, or physically. His votes for 20 years have been in parallel with the Constitution. He has never sold out.

        We know this for a few reasons.

        First, his voting record.

        Second, if he had voted against his principles, the Democrats and the Media would have had six hour long infomercials tarring and feathering him about it….but he is so sqeaky clean they could not come up with any conflicting votes.

        Third, Ron Paul did in fact win the Iowa caucus, but the Republicans were able to suppress it long enough that weeks had went by and it no longer mattered, recounting, recounting, recounting. I wonder if things would have been different if he had not been crushed by his own party and right out of the gate it was on the news that Ron won Iowa? I think it might have been different. Then the Republicans challenged the Maine delegates that Ron Paul won. The challenge was based on technical issues that happen at every caucus, but in this case it was extremely important to the Republicans to make sure these delegates did not show up at the RNC in Tampa. They needed to minimize the pro-Ron Paul delegate crowd as much as possible so it could all be about Romney. According to a Republican at the RNC who was speaking on Schiff Radio the other day, the Maine delegates legally requested the exercise of a right they had to contest the technicality violations but it was ignored by the Republican leadership. They simply heard the request and ignored it. WTF? At this point in time, the Republicans are trying to pass a law where in future elections, no other delegates are allowed to be present at the RNC that are not the delgates of the Presidential nominee.

        Did you hear any of these facts on the TV news? Did the media or the pundits talk about any of this at all? Is anyone in the government school system teaching our children that the Republicans eat their own prodigy? Hell no. The entire system is torqued against us. They control the information from first grade through college. It will only ever be the Americans that reach outside the main streams of information that will learn what is really going on, how far the knife is being buried in our backs.

        And Why? Why is his own party trying to crush all internal opposition, and all future opposition? Because it’s all a sham. They select, we elect, the rest is just a circus show of distractions for our amusement. If the Republicans don’t want him either, then I believe even more that he is the right man for the job.

        I recommend going to YouTube and searching for, “Ron Paul RNC Tribute Video.” It’s only four mins long.

        As to your last comment. I do believe we are in a worse state then we were before. The series of milestones that represent about 95% of our current problems are as follows:

        May 1912 – The beginning of the ultimate ratification of the 17th Amendment, weakening state power at the Federal level by making Senators directly elected by the People rather than by the State government. Now the Senate is not a check and balance against the House. We really just have two Houses now. Death blow for State sovereignty. If the People want something, the State can not protect itself from its citizens as now both parts of Congress are elected by the People. This was an important check and balance the Founders wanted. GONE.

        1913 – The birth of the third Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. Twice before a Federal Reserve had been born by the greedy powers within our Government, and twice before it had been shutdown and dismantled by the wiser powers that ultimately prevailed. We are living with the fallout of what happens when you allow a Federal Reserve to stay in existence as we no longer have any “wiser” powers in government to dismantle it.

        1933 – Roosevelt initiates The New Deal. A raft of programs like Social Security that guarantee taxpayer money from future generations eternal to be redistributed and managed by the Government. Social Security Trust Fund is now empty, with nothing but Treasuries in it (I.O.U.’s) to be paid back by future tax increases, money printing (inflation) or more debt from China (to be paid back to China by future tax increases or money printing (inflation)). Do you see how ultimately, the only solution will be tax increases or inflation? The Government can only buy time and kick the can down the road by issuing debt to China. Ultimately these will collapse the economy but they are both inevitable. The accounts for all The New Deal programs are EMPTY. The only other solution are signficant cuts to Government spending. No Democrat or Republican will cut Government. The result is inevitable.

        1942 – Wickard vs. Filburn. An activist liberal judge on The Supreme Court decides that a man growing food on his own land, on his own farm, to feed his own family impacts interstate commerce, which affects the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. How? If you grow and eat your own food, then you are not buying food from the free market, which means you are lowering demand, which means you are causing prices to drop of that product for everyone else in every state. This ruling allows the Commerce Clause to be used by Government to make American citizens do anything it wants. It was used to argue support of Obamacare, that every American must buy health insurance or be penalized as failure to do so impacts interstate commerce. Due to this ruling in 1942, there is nothing the Government can, or can not, make an American citizen do, even against their will.

        1971 – Nixon closes the gold window and removes us from a gold standard. Now the Federal Reserve can print money with impunity and the Politicians have no limit on how much money they can print to distribute for votes, to promise to special interests, to use to spend on laws that create new deparments and bureaucracies to control our lives.

        Were you taught any of this in school? I know I wasn’t. 😉

  5. I’ve voted for the Libertarian candidate for a number of the past elections since the ideals of the party – individual liberty – fall in line with my beliefs, and because I don’t have any confidence in the two major parties. Not that I think that pure Libertarianism can work in a large complex society (e.g. public roads have to be built). But I consider the Republicans and Democrats to be opposite sides of the same corrupt coin. Both are beholden to special interests. For example, although the Democrats berate Big Oil, oil companies contribute millions to both parties.

    Regarding why we don’t get better candidate choices, I bet we could have had some excellent leaders had they not been afraid to step up because of skeletons hanging around in their closets.

    • I completely agree. Two sides of the same corrupt coin. I wrote once about how people gravitate towards jobs that match their physical capabilities, their skills, their personalities and their ethical and moral barometers; so we should ask ourselves what types of people would gravitate towards being a politician?

      People who love animals become vets, people who like to help others become doctors and nurses, people who want to help others but are more physical and aggressive become police and firefighters, analytical minds become scientists and accountants. What becomes a politician? A round peg is to a round hole as often as a person is to their career choice.

      We are taught in school that being a politician is a civic duty, a sacrifice a citizen makes to serve the public good. That is a complete lie. That is how it USED to be. In the past, citizens from the business community or land owners would take some time away from their private enterprises to become involved in Government. They were political moonlighters. In that they had something to lose, they had little incentive to create laws that hurt private property rights, business, or the free market which benefits everyone. But what we have today are mostly career politicians. Glorified public speakers with lots of made-for-TV makeup that would not be good at much else. Lawyers, community organizers, labor union thugs and leaders, and social and political theorists that have rarely, if ever, held down a job or run a business or balanced a checkbook or made a payroll, under the watchful, omnipotent, oppressive, invasive eye of the Federal Government.

      The type of person that is attracted to becoming a politician is someone who desires attention, power, wealth, prestige, and influence. If you were able to write the job description for the class of citizens that would rule over your every move, is there a single one of us that would write such a description? And yet, these are our overlords.

      Republican. Democrat. Doesn’t matter. Both parties grow government, increase our debt, print money and raise inflation – they just increase the size of different departments of Government and spend the money on different people and special interest groups. Our #1 problem is the expansion of Government, and neither Republican nor Democrat addresses that problem in the slightest which makes both parties useless.

      It is up to bloggers, fiscal conservatives, Tea Partiers and Libertarians to continue this seven year re-educational campaign to re-educate the American citizen, to reverse the years of brain washing by our Public Schools and our Media. To infiltrate the Republican party from within by electing fiscal conservatives that understand the #1 problem facing the country and realize that all social issues are for the States, not the Feds.

      And while I agree that there is some use for Government…even the Founders knew that there is a role and purpose for it…its current size and purpose is so far removed from its original intention that it resembles nothing like what the Founders had in mind. I would rather try every private sector solution for Government (such as road building) and see it fail, and THEN replace it with a Government solution, then ever assume Government as the first answer to anything. As an aside, I do have a belief (and a way to explain it) that all roads can be privately funded and built, but that is another topic altogether.

      Ironically, I have noticed more anti-Big Government scenes in movies and TV lately.

      You have the scene in the recent Star Wars prequel where Queen Amadala sees the Chancellor take unilateral control of the Senate which he says is for “the safety of the Republic,” and she says, “So this is how a Republic dies…to thunderous applause.” I can not help but think of Obama’s quotes about how if Congress is unwilling to act, he will do so on his own, unilaterally. I have to think about Bush’s “Patriot Act” – for our own safety.

      I was watching Hunger Games, and the gameshow host is talking to the President and the President asks him why they don’t just line up all the players from the Districts and shoot them? Why do they allow one to live and reward them with money? The game show host did not know. So the President says, “Hope. A little hope is a good thing. Too much hope is not.” Well said. A little hope keeps people under control, too much hope creates a flag to rally to. Our Government believes the same thing.

      In the new sitcom, “Sullivan & Sons” there is a scene where some of the bar patrons have very high bar tabs. The co-owner of the bar is an older Vietnamese mom and she says, “You Americans need to pay your debts. That’s why the Chinese own your ass.” Poetry in motion.

      The re-educational efforts continue…there is much work to be done.

      • I forgot two more…

        True Grit

        I was watching True Grit (the modern one) and when Rooster Cogburn and the girl stopped at the general store while they were trailing the villian, Rooster showed that someone had been through recently and held up a gold square about the size of a postage stamp with an engraving on it. It was “California gold” which means money that was minted in California so they knew whoever it was, was from out of town.

        Back in the day when we actually used money, and not currency. When money was gold. When money had value. When using small square gold pieces was the same as pulling out a $20 bill.

        Sherlock Holmes

        I was watching Sherlock Holmes, the movie, and after he wins a fist fighting match with bets being placed all around the ring, he knocks his opponent through the wall and walks out of the ring stopping to reach inside the pocket of the promoters jacket. He pulls out these large crinkly sounding sheets of paper with lots of writing on them, leaves one with the promoter and pockets the remaining sheets. If I am not mistaken, these represent early currency. Since you did not want to walk around with a bunch of gold on you, you would deposit it at a local bank and the bank would issue you notes of deposit which said the banks name and how much in gold value each note represented. You could use the notes the same as using the gold you left there, by just handing someone the note to pay for something, and they would go to the bank and get the gold.

  6. Hello my friend! I wish to say that this article is amazing, great
    written and include approximately all significant infos.
    I’d like to look extra posts like this .

  7. Thanks for sharing your info. I really appreciate your efforts and I will be waiting for your further post thanks
    once again.

Have an opinion or a comment? Weigh in!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: