In the editorial, Clinton in the Congo, the author, Kelly Dewitt, talks about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to the Congo. At one point DeWitt makes the statement that “I was never a Hillary fan. But, her appointment to U.S. Secretary of State has pulled me off the fence and a little closer to the Hillary side.” Well, like DeWitt, I was never a fan of Hillary Clinton’s either… and I am still not! Wasn’t she tasked with “fixing” healthcare when her husband was President of the United States?
How soon we forget.
As for her encouraging university students in the Congo to protest against the violence of their country’s rebel forces as well as their country’s own military for crimes committed against their own people could cause repercussions that could make Tiananmen Square look like a school yard spat. I hope she does not have to wish that she had not said the things she did. But like most politicians, it is my opinion that she has the ability to let guilt for anything she might have done roll off her back like water off a duck.
Yes, the violence against innocent people in the Congo is tragic. Yes it would be nice if the United States could solve all of the world’s problems, but we cannot. We are currently involved in a fight with Islamist extremist that was forced upon us. As a result our economy is suffering and as a consequence of our economy suffering so goes the economies of most of the rest of the world.
How soon we forget.
Secretary of State Clinton’s statement that the situation in the Congo is “truly one of mankind’s greatest atrocities.”???
How soon we forget!
It is sad that even our learned Senator, Candidate for President of the United States, and Secretary of State did not learn her history. How dare she compare the plight of the people of the Congo to the Holocaust victims of World War II, or the victims of Japanese brutality inflicted upon the people of China, Korea, The Philippine Islands, and her countrymen who fought to defend the way of life she now enjoys.
If more of our country’s leaders, and voters, were students of history maybe we would not be in the mess we are now in. I challenge anyone reading this to try and find out what commodity was the source for the disagreements between nations that lead to World War II!
How soon we forget!!!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Chase's Chasm
The two party system does not represent the American people. The majority of the people must make compromises in their beliefs to find a party with which to align themselves. Any potential candidate must compromise his or her own beliefs to gain the nomination of one party or the other for without the support of either the Democratic or Republican Party any candidate, with few exceptions, is condemned to obscurity.
Our nation’s founding fathers put little faith in political parties. George Washington refused allegiance to any political party during his Presidency. Benjamin Franklin believed that parties provoke confusion. And Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned against the evils to the general public that a “spirit of faction” would cause. But despite these warnings, by as early as the end of the 1700’s two opposing factions emerged representing different opinions about the role of the federal government. The Federalist wanted a strong central government that would dominate the states, thus ensuring national unity. The Republicans held that the individual states should have more power. While the members of these two opposing parties disagreed over the distribution of power, they agreed on most moral, economic, social, and foreign policy issues such as slavery, domestic trade, the family, and isolationism.
During the 1800’s the chasm between the parties widened, especially over the issue of slavery. The Federalist became the Republicans and opposed slavery and the secession of the South, and the Republicans became the Democratic-Republicans, or the Democratic Party and declared support for slavery and secession.
I think it can be safely said that the two party system of the mid to late 1800’s literally divided our nation. The question that needs to be answered now is, are we going to allow history to repeat itself? We need to learn to be Americans first and to place the importance of “towing the party line” a far distant second. We need to learn to form our opinion on each individual negotiable matter through a careful review of all the relevant facts. We need to find moral common ground on the issues at hand.
How long will we put up with dishonest and corrupt two party system? We need to let it be known that we will no longer tolerate candidates lacking integrity and whose records show the corruption that pervades so deeply the representation we have come to accept and sadly expect. Every American needs to ask him or herself if they trust our government. If the answer is “no”, then we have been duped and it is time we take our government back from the interlopers who now occupy the offices of those who are suppose to do our bidding.
Our nation’s founding fathers put little faith in political parties. George Washington refused allegiance to any political party during his Presidency. Benjamin Franklin believed that parties provoke confusion. And Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned against the evils to the general public that a “spirit of faction” would cause. But despite these warnings, by as early as the end of the 1700’s two opposing factions emerged representing different opinions about the role of the federal government. The Federalist wanted a strong central government that would dominate the states, thus ensuring national unity. The Republicans held that the individual states should have more power. While the members of these two opposing parties disagreed over the distribution of power, they agreed on most moral, economic, social, and foreign policy issues such as slavery, domestic trade, the family, and isolationism.
During the 1800’s the chasm between the parties widened, especially over the issue of slavery. The Federalist became the Republicans and opposed slavery and the secession of the South, and the Republicans became the Democratic-Republicans, or the Democratic Party and declared support for slavery and secession.
I think it can be safely said that the two party system of the mid to late 1800’s literally divided our nation. The question that needs to be answered now is, are we going to allow history to repeat itself? We need to learn to be Americans first and to place the importance of “towing the party line” a far distant second. We need to learn to form our opinion on each individual negotiable matter through a careful review of all the relevant facts. We need to find moral common ground on the issues at hand.
How long will we put up with dishonest and corrupt two party system? We need to let it be known that we will no longer tolerate candidates lacking integrity and whose records show the corruption that pervades so deeply the representation we have come to accept and sadly expect. Every American needs to ask him or herself if they trust our government. If the answer is “no”, then we have been duped and it is time we take our government back from the interlopers who now occupy the offices of those who are suppose to do our bidding.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
LOADED WORDS - A BETTER DEFINITION
In Jamison Lebreton’s editorial Loaded Words, posted to his Blog Independent Opinion on July 31, 2009, he defends the word “socialism”. He postulates that “When deciding if something should be socialized you first ask if it is something that everyone should have access to. If it is something that should be denied to no one, such as schools, then the government should socialize the structure letting everyone pay for it out of taxes and then provide access to everyone at no additional costs.” As I have said before, are not shelter and sustenance things “everyone should have” and that should be “denied to no one”. Then, by applying Mr. Lebreton’s logic, should these necessities not also be provided to everyone at no cost!
I would like to point out that socialism is not interchangeable with communism and we agree that socialism is not necessarily a threat to democracy, at least not initially. There are governments that acknowledge the role that democratic socialism plays in their governments. You are correct, Socialism is a threat to capitalism, and then, after capitalism has been displaced it becomes a threat to the democratic process.
True communism is not a threat to anything and has never really existed except possibly on the plains of Africa or among other groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers where all are equal and all in the group share equally in the spoils of their daily travails. There are no “rulers”. I suppose it would be kind of like direct electronic democracy with no elected government… MOB RULE!
Today people use the word communism to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of one day achieving communism. But one just has to look back at the incident that took place on June 4th, 1989, referred to in the United States as the Tiananmen Square massacre and in China as the June Fourth Incident, to see that the power does not belong to the working class but instead remains within the iron grip of the ruling class.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics self destructed and now those former soviet republics are embracing capitalism and a more democratic form of government which include property rights. Our highways and bridges have been the subject of much discussion in mainstream media and with our country’s lawmakers because they are in such bad shape. Our public education system is in the news daily from local reporting to national news with the general consensus being that the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world. In a piece posted to the cbsnews.com site on September 13th, 2005, tells us that among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree. By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago.
Lastly, I take issue with his statement “...the U.S. armed services have been successful, socialist societies for over 200 years.” I would argue that the U.S. Military is the property of the United States Government and is under the control of our duly elected President and the Commander in Chief, and is a necessary tool of our democratic and capitalist way of life. I would also submit that those patriotic and brave enough to serve their country in this manner have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. In other words, the brave and patriotic men and women of the U.S. Military will give their lives to protect your first amendment right to freedom of speech!
I would like to point out that socialism is not interchangeable with communism and we agree that socialism is not necessarily a threat to democracy, at least not initially. There are governments that acknowledge the role that democratic socialism plays in their governments. You are correct, Socialism is a threat to capitalism, and then, after capitalism has been displaced it becomes a threat to the democratic process.
True communism is not a threat to anything and has never really existed except possibly on the plains of Africa or among other groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers where all are equal and all in the group share equally in the spoils of their daily travails. There are no “rulers”. I suppose it would be kind of like direct electronic democracy with no elected government… MOB RULE!
Today people use the word communism to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of one day achieving communism. But one just has to look back at the incident that took place on June 4th, 1989, referred to in the United States as the Tiananmen Square massacre and in China as the June Fourth Incident, to see that the power does not belong to the working class but instead remains within the iron grip of the ruling class.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics self destructed and now those former soviet republics are embracing capitalism and a more democratic form of government which include property rights. Our highways and bridges have been the subject of much discussion in mainstream media and with our country’s lawmakers because they are in such bad shape. Our public education system is in the news daily from local reporting to national news with the general consensus being that the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world. In a piece posted to the cbsnews.com site on September 13th, 2005, tells us that among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree. By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago.
Lastly, I take issue with his statement “...the U.S. armed services have been successful, socialist societies for over 200 years.” I would argue that the U.S. Military is the property of the United States Government and is under the control of our duly elected President and the Commander in Chief, and is a necessary tool of our democratic and capitalist way of life. I would also submit that those patriotic and brave enough to serve their country in this manner have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. In other words, the brave and patriotic men and women of the U.S. Military will give their lives to protect your first amendment right to freedom of speech!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
