The pundits/Media entertainers of the so-called Left and Right just don't get it. Or...perhaps they only appear to not get it. Here's what each camp does not seem to understand--
The "Left"---
Commentators/Media entertainers such as Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow appear to believe that the Tea Party Movement (or whatever you wish to call it) and the "Right" are "extreme", possibly "dangerous", and upset for no good reason. Matthews and Maddow fail to grasp that the dissatisfaction in many people is due to Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901) and gross violations of the Constitution. Both Republicans and Democrats have been practicing Legislative Absolutism for decades, thus violating their constitutional oath of office. Google "legislative absolutism + Justice Harlan", but don't use quotes.
Our Fed Government is one of enumerated powers, meaning that We the People (who are sovereigns) have delegated to the central government only certain specific powers. The legislative powers are found in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution. About 99% of the members of both Houses of Congress often get around that limitation and by-pass the Supreme Law of the Land simply by going ahead and passing laws illegally, in subject areas for which they have no delegated authority. That's why a lot of people are pissed.
The "Right"---
Media Entertainers (who some people think are political commentators) such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh appear to believe that Democrats and the "Leftists/Socialists" are the main problem relative to disappearing Liberty. Apparently Beck and Limbaugh do not understand that the Corporatocracy (or as some folks call it, the Oligarchy) utilizes Republicans as well as Democrats in its quest for world governance by unelected elites. Past leaders as politically different as FDR and Barry Goldwater warned us that just such a thing was happening. People like Beck and Limbaugh seem to have no clue.
The old political paradigm of Right v. Left or Repubs v. Dems is being used to manipulate We the People. Divide and conquer. The new political paradigm is: Globalists v. the common people, or Globalism v. Sovereignty, or the Corporatocracy v. Nations... or some phrasing along those lines. The Globalists/Mega Corporatists are not genuine Capitalists; instead, they are Crony Capitalists. With their cronies in the central government, they are bringing about the elimination of the Republic of the United States of America. Basically, they are Fascists. Fascism is the marriage of large corporations to the State; it is private ownership, but government control. Plus, as I've said over and over, it's not a conspiracy; it's right out in the open for all to see. The use of the word "conspiracy" is a red herring put out by the Globalist Media.
John D. Rockefeller, probably the King of the Mega Corporatists, once said, "Competition is sin." His old Standard Oil company was broken up by the government into many sub-companies. Most of those were bought up by the old British Petroleum company, known as BP today. One of John's grandsons, David Rockefeller, stated in 1991 (not an exact quote): surely it is preferable to have an unelected body of elites ruling the world rather than the nations of the past, with their corrupt politicians.
The use of the term "socialism" is another red herring. The Mega Corporatists certainly don't want the government to own the means of production; they want to own it. Governments are being used simply as puppets, to give the People the feeling that everything is "democratic".
...........................................................................................................
The misunderstanding that I have attributed to the Right also applies to the Left. Both sides seem to be ignoring the warnings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Barry Goldwater, Carroll Quigley, John Perkins, and in an ironic way, David Rockefeller. Wake up, America.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Good for McChrystal!
Was it rude?...yes. Did it violate military etiquette?...yes. Was it good for his career?...I doubt it, but the guy is already a four-star General. Was he being stupid?...I don't think so. Did he not know what the impact of those remarks would be?...I think he did know.
There is no question that the civilian government should have control over the military. Does that mean that Generals and their staffs should never publicly disagree with the President or other members of the Administration? No, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that at all. I know it's the politically correct thing to do, but I think We the People have a right to know what the Generals who are prosecuting the war think about the civilians who are in control.
According to the reporter who broke the story, McChrystal and his staff have been extremely frustrated with the Obama Administration for quite some time. In my view, it's too bad that Westmoreland didn't speak up back in the Vietnam days. I believe that this situation in Afghanistan is similar to the one in Vietnam back when. In both cases, I don't think the Oligarchy that rules this country wants (or wanted, in 'Nam) to win the war. What they want is perpetual war. [See my previous post immediately below this one.]
I don't support either war that we're engaged in currently...the troops, yes, but not the wars. Obviously, then, I didn't support the "surge" in Afghanistan requested by McChrystal. [Surge---that's government-speak for expanding the war.] Nevertheless, I see his point of view. As McNamara once pointed out, historically it has taken a ratio of ten conventional troops to one guerilla to win an insurgency-type war. By the time McNamara realized that he had to count North Vietnamese Regulars (as well as Viet Cong) in that ratio, it was too late. [That would have meant one million American combat troops in 'Nam.] If we accept that historical ratio, in McChrystal's case that means
250,000 American/Allied troops in Afghanistan. He won't ever get that. The main reason he won't is not because it would be politically unpopular; rather, it is because the Corporatocracy/Oligarchy doesn't want a resolution in Afghanistan for awhile. In my opinion, that's because the American public hasn't yet been conditioned enough to accept our invasion of the next country, whichever one that happens to be.
No-Drama Obama (the Media gave him that tag, not me) easily could prolong the Afghan War by firing McChrystal. Actually, though, it doesn't much matter whether he does or not, because according to the historical ratio mentioned above, whoever leads the troops does not have enough of them to bring about a favorable resolution anyway. [Thank God...more troops would mean more blood and treasure expended in vain.] The fact is, we need to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP. Even if we "stabilize" both countries, what happens when we leave? Major combat (by Americans) supposedly is over in Iraq and the country still is not stable. We can't stay in these countries forever, but that seems to be the plan.
There is no question that the civilian government should have control over the military. Does that mean that Generals and their staffs should never publicly disagree with the President or other members of the Administration? No, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that at all. I know it's the politically correct thing to do, but I think We the People have a right to know what the Generals who are prosecuting the war think about the civilians who are in control.
According to the reporter who broke the story, McChrystal and his staff have been extremely frustrated with the Obama Administration for quite some time. In my view, it's too bad that Westmoreland didn't speak up back in the Vietnam days. I believe that this situation in Afghanistan is similar to the one in Vietnam back when. In both cases, I don't think the Oligarchy that rules this country wants (or wanted, in 'Nam) to win the war. What they want is perpetual war. [See my previous post immediately below this one.]
I don't support either war that we're engaged in currently...the troops, yes, but not the wars. Obviously, then, I didn't support the "surge" in Afghanistan requested by McChrystal. [Surge---that's government-speak for expanding the war.] Nevertheless, I see his point of view. As McNamara once pointed out, historically it has taken a ratio of ten conventional troops to one guerilla to win an insurgency-type war. By the time McNamara realized that he had to count North Vietnamese Regulars (as well as Viet Cong) in that ratio, it was too late. [That would have meant one million American combat troops in 'Nam.] If we accept that historical ratio, in McChrystal's case that means
250,000 American/Allied troops in Afghanistan. He won't ever get that. The main reason he won't is not because it would be politically unpopular; rather, it is because the Corporatocracy/Oligarchy doesn't want a resolution in Afghanistan for awhile. In my opinion, that's because the American public hasn't yet been conditioned enough to accept our invasion of the next country, whichever one that happens to be.
No-Drama Obama (the Media gave him that tag, not me) easily could prolong the Afghan War by firing McChrystal. Actually, though, it doesn't much matter whether he does or not, because according to the historical ratio mentioned above, whoever leads the troops does not have enough of them to bring about a favorable resolution anyway. [Thank God...more troops would mean more blood and treasure expended in vain.] The fact is, we need to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP. Even if we "stabilize" both countries, what happens when we leave? Major combat (by Americans) supposedly is over in Iraq and the country still is not stable. We can't stay in these countries forever, but that seems to be the plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)