Resurrecting the Voice of the American People

The Primary and General elections of 2008 have come and gone. And the Voice of Reason lies in state. It went down with a solemn and overwhelming vote for a promised cleanup of this country. What has become of this nation between then and now can only be described as utter confusion. This, in part is caused by the People--not the President.  Sadly, voter turnout continues to display a shameful lack of either patriotism or civic duty. Where other countries--such as those where we are willing to lose our lives to defend their sacred right to vote--have citizens willing to risk all to state their opinion about who their leaders should be, we, for the most part, couldn't care less. In fact, we leave the decision to the very few to decide for us our leadership, yielding our responsibility and our interest to others. What if those who vote on our behalf have values that are opposite to ours? Apparently it doesn't matter. What if those who vote in our stead know little or nothing about how our government works?  Oh well.  What if they are connected to all the things we claim are the problems in our system?  What if they need a translator to read the ballot? Too bad.

It is frighteningly too bad.  In Houston, the fourth largest city in the nation, less than 13% turned out to vote in the November 2011 election.  It was a "sleeper" by anyone's definition.  But sleeper or not, the act of speaking one's mind should never be considered optional. To Houston’s mayor, an incumbent who just won her second term, the sleeper was to her benefit.  After spending millions on her campaign and despite having relative unknowns for competition, she narrowly squeaked out a win.  What would have happened if the other 87% had turned up at the polls? Or, even 50%?  Surveys from before the Primary race showed Parker’s popularity dropping like an anvil—just above 30%, a statistical sign that she would lose the election.  Instead, the low voter turnout may have favored her.  This example is not the exception.  Across the nation, elections have dwindled to virtually nothing.

 In 2008, an election in Utah was won by 8% of the registered primary election voters, which retired one of the most statistically conservative Congressmen in the nation--Chris Cannon.  Excepting James Hansen, Cannon's record included the highest number of passed legislation in the history of the state of Utah. But 87% of the state's eligible voters said "so what?" by not showing up to voice their opinion.  So a minute cross section of society decided for the bulk of that district's citizens who was going to be their Congressman.  While the winner of that race, Jason Chaffetz often boasts winning by more than 60%, it was 60% of the 8% that showed!  Bluntly put, it was The Chaffetz People who decided for the rest of their district who would win because the rest blew off the importance of that election. As Congressman Cannon said it, "Chaffetz people came out and mine didn’t, the people have spoken."  But that is, as they say, history--a history that continues to repeat itself as Americans have yet to recover from their apathy. The operative word is "yet".

While the numbers voting in primaries across the nation in 2008 were still extremely low--a pattern over many previous elections--an undercurrent was building. The Obama administration, liberals and the liberal media (meaning, THE media) act as if that undercurrent is a deadly rip-tide caused by the Tea Party movement. News of their contempt for the Tea Party people is also history.  But a careful look around, across all political sectors, shows much more than a single movement emerging. Indeed, within the Tea Party movement itself, there is a diverse cross section of political perspectives that have come together with one force and one objective--reduce the size of the Federal Government.  Translation: cut the spending, cut the control of states, cut taxes, cut the crap. But outside the movement, splinter movements, and other conservative movements have emerged. It is a focus that has proven to scare the bejeebers out of liberals.  The obvious answer is to label (or libel) the Tea Party movement as a specific kind of people--"Bigots" to divide and conquer, "white" to split the vote, "paranoid" to divert attention from constitutionally destructive maneuvers, "extremists" to prove they are not normal, and "Republican, or former-Republicans" to put a party label on them. Nice try.

If anything, those attempts have only spawned the growth of American activism.  Thus, a new strategy must be implemented to calm the grassroots rip-tide.  That new strategy happens to be the oldest: Fight fire with fire.  Now comes, Occupy Wall Street--the antithesis of anything Tea Party in a movement. Well, sort of.  The movement has yet to be defined. In fact, watching a clip from Steven Colbert, who interviewed, with his classic sarcasm intact, two Wall Street Occupiers(OWS), should put to rest any questions about the legitimacy of this so-called (counter) movement's ability to define itself, produce any viable solutions, or prove it is anything different than the same 'ol, same 'ol in political griping and having a cause without actually having one. To be fair, OWS and past "anti-" protests are not the same.  The Tea Party is actually an "anti-" protest. But even the radical protesters of the 60's--despite communes, and communism, "free love", and free drugs, as horrific as those "changes" were--would not have defecated in public for attention, or stepped in front of moving vehicles so they can claim to be victims, or create riots then innocently look around as if they had done nothing to start the conflagrations. Even the rioters of the 60's, and 70's had the strength of character to claim their role in them. –And despite their liberal and outlandish living--had a sense of dignity. So, while Soros, who funded Adbusters, whose president, Kalle Lasn (a Canadian), started Occupy Wall Street as a social experiment, expected this latest strategy to take down the insurgence of activism from regular Americans a notch or two, it will fail as well. The differences are far too glaring for the public to not easily promote conservative activism over the OWS mess.  Another nice try.

Exercising our voice is the most important check in the Constitution and the most challenging to maintain. The fact is that there are people from all walks of life emerging from the ground sick and tired of an acid reflux government.  The people may not see the ulcers forming, but they sure feel it in the gut!  Unfortunately, there are still far too many Americans willing to blindly go their way without a single care about what is actually happening to their society. It is a frightening paradigm.  Milk of Magnesia has been, at least up until now, readily available and pretty cheap.  

This kind of American is like the cat, who believes that because its head is hidden--and it can see nothing--that its backside is safe when it remains openly and fully exposed. For this American, slowly but surely becoming extinct, their rude awaking is still at hand.  Benjamin Franklin warned that apathy will destroy this Republic as our country's system will not survive if we are careless and cowardly.  That has turned out to be prophetic with our current President.

Interestingly, rip-tides are caused from two opposing forces crossing over and under each other.  One creates a strong push forward from the top while a vacuum-like suction from below pulls everything out to sea.  Thus, riptides are the cleanup crews of beaches and shorelines.  "Rip-tide" may be an apt and flattering description of the Tea Party and subsequent activism of the general population--cleaning up the system. It is no wonder apathy is the worst fear of Founding Fathers such a Franklin.  Without it there is no rip-tide to clean up collusion, corruption, cronyism and so forth. It is also no wonder those involved in the latter fear the upswing in American activism. Instead of fearing the rip-tide, let us help it along with more water to increase the tide for the coming election.

Our survival as the Republic we were designed to be depends on our activism at the polls and in our daily opportunities to speak up and out.

QUIT TINKERING WTIH AMERICA

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” GEO.WASHINGTON

One of the foremost geniuses of the Founding Fathers was their understanding of America as the place to come to, leaving behind the place people came from. This was and still is a distinctly different paradigm than prevailed then—and even prevails now—the world over. The prevailing idea then was to conquer another land. While the colonies were originally of that design---to bring England elsewhere—the kind of people who actually came to America ended up being a breed apart. They wanted to establish a new land free from everywhere else—not an appendage to another land.

That has made America the most independent of all countries, which in turn had made it the most fertile for putting ideas into concrete reality, the most ingenious at creating something apparently starting with nothing—which we now coin as the “American Dream”, and inventing from imagination rather than from a world-view cheat sheet. In short, the United States was and still is the land to covet for its distinctly unique characteristics.

The Founders were not unaware of this. Even in that day, countries would have picked off this fledgling nation had the founders not reorganized the need for a stronger protectionist federation of states we now call the Constitution of the United States of America. This built-in fortress system  designed to proliferate that original independent mindset naturally led to a high standard of immigration policy. “Who are you and why are you here? And if you are not here to build America you are not welcome,” was the basis for immigration policy of the Federal government. It demanded that people have a purpose aligned to the purpose for which the United States was founded. If people were not in America to visit, nor invest in its mission, nor to become a productive citizen, they were not here. Period. Surprisingly this standard actually drew people from all over the world here to propagate the original intent. Moreover if foreigners intended on becoming citizens, they were required to create their own job—not take one from already existing Americans; to be of sound mind and body—yes, they had to have a general physical upon arriving here; and sign a docking list, identifying who they were, and from whence they came. They also had to have a sponsor--someone to vouch for their character.  This provided mechanisms to safe guard America’s character.

To be clear, this is not an immigration discussion. It is a discussion about the reliance upon the unique relationship between two American characteristics, independent thought and why we left our roots behind. The former required then and still does require now, an indifference to other countries’ policies and a surrender of them, while still allowing individuals the right to carry on their familial traditions within the larger content of their state and the nation. Hence, the phase, “melting pot” came to describe America as a fusion of many different backgrounds to one solidarity of purpose—freedom.

With a watchful eye upon intruders designing to covet America—either its land, people, industry, innate observance of freedoms, or any combination--that left only one viable hole for infiltration and destruction of American principles and ideals. Clearly America’s strength has always been in its ability to provide a view to the world of what works to the promise of freedom, thus inspiring other countries to that path.   But once America looks to follow, it is done in. The latter requires an eye on the very places of origin generations of Americans and future Americans have so willingly forsaken for purist freedom.  Moreover, when Americans become illiterate enough of their own grand system, the inherent differences between ancestral homelands and here becomes muddy. Therein lay the hole allowing for destruction of the Land of Liberty.

This settles us squarely on the present day dilemma. Our President looks to Scandinavian countries for a health care model; to the Middle East for a moral model; and to the UN for a social and model. But he fails to look to our own model—that created by the Founding Fathers—with any sense of value. Unfortunately, irrespective of whether the society agrees with a leader’s political sense, they are still, on some level, persuaded by it. Years of persuasion lead to generations that are either guided or misguided but it. It makes one wonder then, when a group protesting what the president himself also vilifies, how much of the groups energy or impetus is either driven or orchestrated by the leader. When that leader, in this case, Obama, looks for cues outside the country he is supposed to be leading, it naturally draws others from inside the country there are well.

To be fair: Mr. Obama is not the only, nor the first, president to drive his constituents off course. But he is the most profound example, having what appears to be no vision of America from inside America. His answer to America’s problems is for the Federal government is to tinker with and twist every avenue of American life. And if that doesn’t net the results he promises, tinker some more.   Americans have been persuaded over time to look elsewhere for instruction primarily because they haven’t been instructed in the principles of government that made their country not only unique but more powerful among nations because it was much different than anywhere else.  Illiteracy in the original design of our nation is taking a severe toll. In our ignorant state, we are subject to all sorts of ideas, themes, paradigms, principles and policies contrary to how our system works. This supplanted instruction pervades so long as the proper buzz word is attached.—Words such as freedom, democracy, liberty, right or rights, and the most abused of them all, fair.


First of all, contrary to popular misunderstanding: Democracy and liberty are not synonymous.  Secondly, we are not a Democracy.
Here is a case in point about our present state of illiteracy: To a group just entering the political arena is the anti-banking, anti-capitalism group staging obscene and incoherent rallies in, especially, New York City,—but not excluding other places. The rallying cry of this mob of variants on not one, but many themes, is fairness. This is the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” protest. Sadly this is a group of mixed agendas, most of them having nothing to do with a real cause, but simply an opportunity to display antics, and the baser side of humanity. These do not represent the vast majority of Americans; and their objective—whatever that may be, nor is it finding a voice of persuasion among most Americans. With no affection, they have been dubbed the “Flea Party”. But to the slender remainder of those protesting, the invisible minority who are there beyond antics—at least as the media is portraying them—their participation is simply evidence of the lack of understanding to the way our system was designed to work and how to fix problems in our society. They are relying on misinformation and a lack of training that assumes they will accomplish something from the antics, but are more than likely to only fester the problem.

Regardless of their objectives or cause, this body of protesters probably has no idea who is connected to this movement. One of the richest men in the world, and admittedly the mastermind in destroying markets the globe over, manipulating them for his own gain, says he is sympathetic to their cause of bringing down Wall Street and banks. That is George Soros. But making a statement of sympathy is not the same as involvement, until it is discovered that Soros is financially connected to the organization that initiated the movement, Adbusters. (One has to wonder whether Soros has made maneuvers of the market, particularly with banks, as he attempts another financial coup d’état of some sort.)

Adbusters CEO and Founder Kalle Lasn is the man behind “Occupy Wall Street”. His intent is fuzzy, other than to get a buzz from the power of inciting riots with predominantly irrational behavior. To promote the project, Lasn produced an ingenious advertisement—a tiny ballerina graciously poised atop the bull statue of Wall Street, amidst a background of angry invaders rushing toward the central objects in the ad poster. His purpose and what message he planned to convey? In his own words, Lasn boasts,

"There's some idea there, and the power of it comes from the fact that most of the time you'll never be able to answer what it is. It's just there. It's just a magic moment that you can feel in your gut that it's there, and you're willing to go there and sleep there and go through the hardship and fight for it. Once you start answering it too clearly then the magic is gone."

In less poetic and more direct words, Lasn, a Canadian, living in Toronto, Canada, is admitting to doing nothing more than manipulation for manipulation sake—or his entertainment, whichever is most poignant for him. The only cause is actually the movement itself: The movement itself supports only emotion. In fact, if one used any amount of intelligence, as Lasn readily admits—Lasn calls it, “answering it too clearly”—the cause disappears. This manipulation of public emotion is being demonstrated with prophetic precision. The protests are a gathering of unlike minds, but for one cause—to demonstrate that someone can harness American passion without any intelligible purpose or intent. The number of issues oozing forth from this pustule of demonstrations is numerous. Some complain they are out of work. Some claim banks are corrupt. Some say they pay too much for college tuition. Others claim unions should rule over businesses, and still others have so much disdain for services such as police, they defecate in public atop service vehicles. In a nutshell, Lasn is just tinkering with Americans, like marionettes.

Sadly, there are some who will attend these protests, tolerating the inane in hopes that their genuine issue is going to be solved through these anarchical outbursts. They are being duped.

Striking workers protesting outside their workplace will, to some extent or another, convince their employer to provide their demands: But Wall Street is not an employer.

When no businesses can be found hiring, some will create their own business: But Wall Street doesn’t create businesses for anyone, nor hire employees.

Citizens will head to city, county, state or even federal meetings to testify of improper, inadequate, or unjust public services with the hope that it will create legislation or eliminate the same, to remedy the problem: But Wall Street is not a depository for any such civic meetings, a provider of such services, nor a legislative body that can rectify the problem.

Wall Street is nothing more than an exchange system of owners of businesses. The only way to protest Wall Street is to not go there. The only way to protest Wall Street is stop investing in it. One who wants to stop banking corruption should turn their business elsewhere AND complain through their elected officials to stop tinkering with the system through excessive and sometimes downright weird regulations. The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are nothing more than symbolic antics given purpose by outside parasites piling high on the heap of anti-American paradigms. Anti-Wall Street is code or anti-Capitalism. Anti-banks is actually code for anti-property, which is actually pro-Marxist, pro-communist. Pro-public education funded by the government is again rooted in socialism, and most predominantly communism. Indeed, nearly every want implied from the collection of protesters ‘Occupy Wall Street” comes, not by way of Constitutional solutions already built in to our system—would we oblige them—but in ideals and practices—historically failed practices—from elsewhere, most notably from socialist and communist countries. The latest news is profound: The National Socialist Party and the American Nazi Party—both oxymoron of Americanism—have endorsed “Occupy Wall Street”.

The blame for the protests cannot go to Kalle Lasn. He is as much exonerated as the cause of the problem as Obama. Like Obama, he is feeding off the problem, but didn’t create it. Lasn may be a somewhat disturbed, manipulative puppet-master looking for ways to entertain his friends like Soros but the blame goes to two completely different but related sources. According to the Founding Fathers, Americans must focus their attention, first, to the cause of Americanism by protecting the liberties as originally designed, and secondly, to the propagation of the capitalist market that supports those liberties. But many of the protesters are crying that America should be copying the Scandinavian, former Soviet, East German, Cuban, Canadian, and Euro countries’ way of handling social services, the economy, governmental systems and every other aspect of American life. This is an indication that these Americans—and nearly all other Americans—have no idea that the source of our problems lay in abusing and flat out ignoring the system of government as originally designed. Many of the problems with our economic, scientific, societal, judicial, and other systems has directly to do, not with too little tinkering with the system, but too much of it.

Any protest worth defending with the first amendment will be one by literate, educated Americans who know when someone is tinkering with then or not.

Solutions lay in an honest resurgence of learning from the roots sources how our country is supposed to work. The more government involvement in fixing problems, the deeper into the abyss we go in the problem. A government solution to all of life’s problems draws Americans away from their roots, not toward them. This is the very scenario the covetous of America are hoping for. The solution is to reverse course. Don’t like Wall Street? Tell the federal government to get its fingers out of the pie. Don’t like Banks? Tell the Federal government to stop telling banks what to do. Had the federal government not tinkered with the mortgage standards, the bubble they created that subsequently burst would not have needed any further tinkering by the government. Don’t like being out of work? Look around at opportunities to create a new business. Don’t like the expense of a college education? Understand that anything of worth requires a sacrifice. Want more democracy—more direct control by the people? Then we are foreigners in our own land. We are a Republic designed to disdain mob rule. And above all, want more fairness? Then we don’t want more equality. They are not the same, and are in fact, opposites: The former requires an arbitrator, someone to decide what is fair, a subjective decision for us. All governmental systems claiming to produce fairness are those who will decide what that means. They are then our master.

Americans were designated to be our own master. Indeed, America herself was designed to be a country free from any world taskmaster, designed to provide the most independence from government.  So quit tinkering with America.