Politically Incorrect Sanity

Wading into the foul-smelling, political pools of American politics has never been more dangerous to a sane mind. Political tags have always been a part of the unique American party-identification system, which from a distance looks more like a sporting event than a legitimate method of choosing ones leaders. That party— versus this party— versus those parties— may seem like a fair round-about-way of allowing political competition, until you realize none of them matter at all, where the power actually counts. While the winners head off to the big House to carry out their “Parties” business, the losers are left to ponder is this system worth all the trouble and expense to get nothing at all? Nothing new here, right?

–November 6, 2009

“A growing number of Americans and researchers suggest that many corporations in the U.S. contribute to both Democrats and Republicans, so that no matter who wins the election, corporations can still exert their influence in Washington.  But, does this line of thought have any merit?  As they say, let’s simply “follow the money”.

The following firms are ranked in order of their total contributions for 2008.  But, the chart below illustrates their total contributions over the last 20 years.  Every firm on this list is defined as “on the fence”, meaning they have leaned neither Republican, nor Democrat and have largely donated to both parties.”  This information was compiled from http://www.opensecrets.org/.


“A blogger at albatross.org correctly stated in 1994, “The problem in America isn’t that the Republican party has sold its soul to corporate wealth, Christian fundamentalism and Plutarch.  The problem with America is that Democrats have, too. The problem with America is that the Republicans and the Democrats are units of the same organization, an organization that has consolidated its control over the American political process to the exclusion of all others.” (http://albatross.org/journal/archives/000789.html)

Too bad this poster did not recognize the sell out occurred well over a hundred years ago on both sides— history just re-cycles along and yet, nobody bothers to recognize that pattern is stronger for a different reason than money influence alone. Of course those who have no big-money backers can only hope/pray to draw enough voters into their ranks, by whatever means necessary, thereby getting one of their party candidates into Office, which is of course yet another Franchise. Technically speaking, a two-party system, or any political party system for that matter, was never actually mentioned in the Constitution as a requisite to hold the franchise. That too, is a loophole:

“However, the United States Constitution has always been silent on the issue of political parties; at the time it was signed in 1787, there were no parties in the nation. Indeed, no nation in the world had voter-based political parties. The need to win popular support in a republic led to the American invention of political parties in the 1790s.[1] Americans were especially innovative in devising new campaign techniques that linked public opinion with public policy through the party.[2]—”

–The modern political party system in the U.S. is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress to some extent since at least 1856.

–Since the 1930s, the modern American political spectrum and the usage of left–right politics have basically differed from the rest of the world. For example, among the two major parties, modern American Conservatism and the Republican Party support economic liberalism and classical liberalism‘s central principle of limited government, instead of modern American Liberalism and the Democratic Party.[5]” Wikipedia

Inclusion and Exclusion, are the two fundamental forces which shape human reality. What is included can be refined just as what can be excluded can be refined— scaled up or down— creating complex positive and negative patterns which in turn can be exploited in models, or any type of data-flow-charting analysis conducive to the goals. Trend-lines can be plotted in real-time Metrics and topology-mapped with great sophistication of purpose. People are not freed by their choices they are trapped by the false-positive nature of the system itself. Knowing where people are politically allows a control point— a psychometric-energy flowchart to guide the real powers working the system to its real ends.

“The Winner-Take-All System.The single most important reason for a two-party system is the winner-take-all electoral system. In contrast to systems with proportional representation, the winner in American elections is the one who receives the largest number of votes. The winner does not need to have more than 50 percent, but only one vote more than his or her opponents. If a third party receives 15% of the vote for every contested Senate seat, that party wins zero seats in the United States Senate. Consequently, one of the two major parties almost always wins a plurality, and third parties are completely shut out of national offices.http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5a.asp

Quite the winning strategy for the dominate political class, and a crap shot for everybody else. The need to win[buy] the popular vote has been the thorn in the American heel ever since day one. For those that do not agree with the core stances of the major parties, voting is at best a mixed bag of tricks and no treats. The polarization of the right versus left leaves much to be desired for many, who may have some success with the Libertarian party or the Green party. More than likely however, many just stop voting altogether, and become part of that silent-majority party. This website Politics1.com has some interesting bio’s on some of the “other” political parties still operating out there across America. If the political wheel has republicans on one side and democrats on the other it is one to itself. If it is spinning— say clock-wise it is pro-Republican and counter-clockwise pro-Democratic— now spin a quarter on a table-top and ask which spin will produce a fundamental change? Unless, that quarter turns into a gold one, the same state exists now matter how much it spins, or in what spin-direction.

—“Dr. Marc A Triebwasser, a Political Science Professor at Central Connecticut University tells us that “in 1971 the Federal Elections Campaign Act was passed, banning corporate campaign contributions. That was followed by the Watergate scandal. As a result of that scandal, major amendments to that act were passed in 1974.”  He goes on to say, “The 1974 Amendment tried to limit campaign contributions and campaign spending.”

“However,” he states, “it is very difficult to reform campaign financing. If you try to bar corporate campaign contributions, then the members of the board will contribute personally. If members of the board are not allowed to contribute, their wives will contribute, and so on. There are always loopholes that corporations will try to find. And, since they are well-connected and have a lot of high paid lawyers on their side, they will find loopholes. It’s very difficult to control this. We have been trying to control corporate contributions for the last 100 years now–without much success!” (http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/InfluGov.html)

When popularity and money go hand-n-hand, even well supported third-parties are still fighting an uphill battle, very few ever win where it counts–the magical land of the Federal Offices. The Constitution never required an Office Holder to be a candidate on a specific, political-based ticket, as the qualifying criteria of that Office. The great political machine however, working the two-party system, like a double-headed beast, has defied all attempts to cut off either head successfully. The machine and its beastly heads are two separate things under the hood, and candidates need so much money to run for offices, that odious factor is just ignored, as being the unpleasant nature of the political business. Buying politicians is also a long, term factor in American politics, whose rules fall under the Art of the Deal. Meaning whatever works. Campaign fundraising is a whole subject unto itself.

Naturally, being a lawyer is practically a prerequisite, for many reasons, some of which some are rather logical.  A quote from Alexis de Tocqueville still rings true today as it did back then:

“Lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, and to the aristocracy by habit and taste; they may be looked upon as the connecting link between the two great classes of society…

I am not ignorant of the defects inherent in the character of this body of men; but without this admixture of lawyer-like sobriety with the democratic principle, I question whether democratic institutions could long be maintained…

In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of society

The influence of legal habits extends beyond the precise limits I have pointed out. Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings.”

And a few more quotes equally as apt today:

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
Alexis de Tocqueville

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
Alexis de Tocqueville

“However, not only are fortunes equal in America, equality extends to some degree to intelligence itself. I do not think that there is a single country in the world where, in proportion to the population, there are so few ignorant and, at the same time, so few educated individuals as in America. Primary education is available to all; secondary is within reach of no one, which can be explained quite easily as the inevitable result, so to speak, of my argument above. Almost all Americans enjoy a life of comfort and can, therefore, obtain the first elements of human knowledge. In America there are few rich people; therefore, all Americans have to learn the skills of a profession which demands a period of apprenticeship. Thus America can devote to general learning only the early years of life. At fifteen, they begin a career; their education ends most often when ours begins. If education is pursued beyond that point, it is directed only towards specialist subjects with a profitable return in mind. Science is studied as if it were a job and only those branches are taken up which have a recognized and immediate usefulness.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“In examining the division of powers, as established by the Federal Constitution, remarking on the one hand the portion of sovereignty which has been reserved to the several States, and on the other, the share of power which has been given to the Union, it is evident that the Federal legislators entertained very clear and accurate notions respecting the centralization of government. The United States form not only a republic, but a confederation; yet the national authority is more centralized there than it was in several of the absolute monarchies of Europe….”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“In other words, the government of the democracy is the only one under which the power which lays on taxes escapes the payment of them.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 1

“If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not composed of the rich, who are united together by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 1

“The lawyers of the United States form a party which is but little feared and scarcely perceived, which has no badge peculiar to itself, which adapts itself with great flexibility to the exigencies of the time, and accommodates itself to all the movements of the social body; but this party extends over the whole community, and it penetrates into all classes of society; it acts upon the country imperceptibly, but it finally fashions it to suit its purposes.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 1

“All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a stranger to be so incomprehensible and so puerile that he is at a loss whether to pity a people which takes such arrant trifles in good earnest, or to envy the happiness which enables it to discuss them. But when he comes to study the secret propensities which govern the factions of America, he easily perceives that the greater part of them are more or less connected with one or the other of those two divisions which have always existed in free communities. The deeper we penetrate into the working of these parties, the more do we perceive that the object of the one is to limit, and that of the other to extend, the popular authority. I do not assert that the ostensible end, or even that the secret aim, of American parties is to promote the rule of aristocracy or democracy in the country; but I affirm that aristocratic or democratic passions may easily be detected at the bottom of all parties, and that, although they escape a superficial observation, they are the main point and the very soul of every faction in the United States.”

The following political “satire” encapsulating of the left versus the right[factions], are an illustration of the breakdown in full progress of these political parties. While meant to be humorous, these stereotyping portrayals contribute to the perception that Americans are basically, too enamored of the superficial differences, between two equally “defective” positions, than to recognize the injustice of the defects themselves of the internally broken, social-body. Humpty Dumpty went splat and all we do today is make funny pics of the spatter-pattern. The left-right paradigm is idiotic at best, on one-hand and patently absurd on the other.





Defining people by their “political” choices is nothing new, but pitting people against one-another just to ratchet-up the already seething, uncivil discourse across the political spectrum, seems to be a strategy which is far too successful in promoting Idiotacracy, to be of any factual, civil good. Unless, of course, that quality of demanding political disconnection which promotes civil indifference is the actual goal. Modern political parties are so shallow they defy any reason for having them at all. What good is it to deceive people, that they are choosing the best representative, based on criteria more qualified for the horse races? Is making more money the only goal? Well, making even less money has to be no better.

When everything is judged by how much dough is in the oven, whose slice comes first{Rights to the fed money} and the proportions so taken{corporation getting their cut}, waiting for the crumb{everybody else} is more than just insulting, as it proves “equality of money power” is indeed a long-standing joke. Laws can easily determine fair proportions, just as weight can determine balance on the scales— so it is not simply a question of not possible— is this balance of proportions possible— it is simply not done period. And why is a very simple deduction to make— a fair impartial-system actually means,  no more political-insiders aka “professionals” can make those sweet-heart deals of their own justified ends, as they become instantly obsolete. Essentially, they have to do a “bad job” to insure they have one at all. Money is a peculiar damn thing– which needs rules–but any “law” so claimed of its use, is always political, not actions of physics. Funny how the mechanical aspect of the printing-press technically made central-banks obsolete, and yet, they are as powerful as ever deciding every nook of the system they created to exploit. Smart-money* is the next big-step and both politicians and bankers might very well, go the way of the Dodo bird–if people ever realize of course what the trick is beneath the hype. So both groups have a serious, self-interest conflict, a self-perpetuating Bias that neither wants solved any time soon— No pious reason to have any more gratuitous power over the public[k] body perhaps?

Now the politicians will just laugh, and shoot back society[citizens] needs us to write laws, to solve the many issues that concern them. When corporations write laws which benefit them at both ends of the public trough, this is the citizen of which these politicians truthfully speak. People wrongly assume they were talking about those other “citizens” which actually need air to live. Corporations are citizens whose persons, while being a legal fiction, have long since owned the entire political upper-pool where the actual power comes by for a drink and a swim. Politics is by far the most inefficient method for solving social problems. It has to be or the whole shebang falls dead to the ground in a heartbeat. The sad fact is it was engineered to be this way on purpose by the very same cronies of the syndicate bankster’s, which is why they support each other, just like the mob that they are today, and have always been. The foul truth is of course a party waiting for some members to join and field a candidate for office. The “Politics Stinks Club” is always open for organization, and membership is of course always free.

To convince potential voters the “PSC-Party” is serious, naturally requires a party platform, and no doubt a very short list of why those positions are better than nothing and superior to anything those old, dominant parties can offer. The secret being that those in power never fear anything better than what they offer, as the real rules are set in stone and not open for discussion or changes. Some newcomer to the national center of power is no doubt going to be universally ignored, or worse yet a scapegoat for whatever can stick like a lawn dart to the back. Those old-timers didn’t call it a den of vipers for nothing, or maybe they were just confused as which den they were in, as they all look-alike. Maybe, a lucky candidate from outside the dominate parties, might reach one of the fabled offices, but the money-centers will no doubt turn on him, or her, plus, the media will dig out every last embarrassing, petty thing to be found history wise and fling it across the news, as if dirty laundry was just invented. To control all three is so impractical, for any outsider, none has ever succeeded. They do not call them Media Moguls for the hell of it and that is just the guy sitting in the executive chair. The guys above him do not worry about politics— they make politics. Their factories turn out “politics” like a noodle factory–they have five-hundred flavors of the same noodle. You say, “wow” what a great party-noodle — and off you go another satisfied constituent.

On the more serious side, the truly, ugly matters of modern social-problems, allow a more devious form of manipulation to coerce false, political choices.

For example, take the key issue of abortion. A major hot-button, always guaranteed to invoke left-right mutual hostilities. Every woman has the Right to an abortion versus pro-life moral good—

Women do have the natural Right, of that decision, or they are soon deprived of all Rights. Is it morally wrong–yes, or people have lost their Right, to have any personal morals at all. The question is framed wrongly to be exactly what it is— a source of division to be exploited.  People who are in the throes of furious anger cannot think— the more hot buttons which can be pushed, the less thinking that will occur, during that precious time-slot, and every other possible problem, has once again escaped notice. Making a mountain out-of-a molehill is the beauty of mean-spirited politics— to misdirect attention to the corner, which can be controlled,  and well away from the really dangerous subjects to be avoided at all times.

Is either side, of the abortion issue, really advocating the best possible moral-position for every woman who faces such a decision, or just in the “group” distinction? Does a woman first need to be a liberal to make the right choice, if not, why frame the choice at all in a false moral-ambiguity? Can a conservative female make the wrong, legal choice for the right, moral reason? How about the wrong, moral reason for the right, legal choice? The decision to carry to term a pregnancy must have a defining criteria which has to originate with the female–making the decision— or is her body not hers? If a female has no right to decide what her body can, or cannot do, is she a slave, to the “Authority” that makes that decision for her? A female is making two or more choices at once in conflict. There is NO proper resolution to that conflict. Black is not white and moral-choices are not colors in a fictional, political rainbow.

Lets say for argument’s sake, that no female, regardless of circumstance, can ever have an abortion, period. No doctor can perform one without going to prison, right along with the female. Both are sentenced under an automatic charge with no plea. The next step is the death penalty, say on the second offense. There would be a substantial, critical backlash, of course, to the criminal punishment itself. Perhaps, a lawyer would make a passionate Court case, arguing against the idea, that the State, can only decide such moral issues, after proving, the States interests far outweigh individual choices. If the State demands, every conception must end with a live birth, or else, then the State, must also provide a qualifying responsibility for the life, so preserved.

If the State says, well, the parents are financially responsible for the child, we just ensure the baby is born, therefore, the hardship of raising babies is clearly out-side of the traditional, jurisdictional arrangements. This well may mean, one more single, female-household living in dire-poverty. This is the moral-hazard area where the top-hand demands strict adherence to a specific, lawful requirement, but the outcome itself is to be ignored. Yes, every possible baby is saved, but if the saved child later on dies from either abuse, starvation, and or neglect, the State has no culpability. The law decided abortion not the problems of life itself. Perhaps, the mother just goes into prostitution to make money, and simply goes right back to the wheel-of justice for a death-sentence. Does the punishment actually fit the crime? What is the price of Compassion?

Does a female actually receive proper Due Process, when a biological question arises for which no judicial answer morally exists? Is the judge playing God or omnipotent State with her life? If the left claims the State is all-powerful, and the proof is only found in accepting a negative as a positive— fictions have no authority over the Living— is reversed for Socialism, but moral-conscience cannot be removed from the living person— a moral-conscience is an Unalienable Right. A man can change his own mind, but his mind belongs to him. No man regardless of his public[k] servant-hat has a Right to remove the mind of another, thus, to forcefully change that mind, or remove another man’s tongue. Totalitarian power had to be cut into pieces and made into a Rube Goldberg device to get around the restrictions so placed on the Federal servants while in Office. Politics plays the essential role in that machine. To make it work it needs bad choices— to foment public outrage— which drives the big-wheels and makes the cogs turn out— yet more insanity packaged in neat, little-boxes marked,  public[k] good. If it says good it must be good–right?

On the other side–taking a hard stance–all bad, immoral females committing the crime of abortion, deserve to be punished for their lack of control and immoral behaviors is good, public policy by conservative[political] rules and bad for Liberal ones. But what if it was the other way around? Well, people might say that is an absurdity to say that a conservative would approve of abortions and a Liberal would denounce their legitimacy. There is no possible way those two positions could be reversed, as if the positions themselves are making the decisions, not living people. People can change their minds, but the political mask remains the same; no matter what the circumstances may be, or by what context. This is a defect on both sides of the issue. Context is everything and political party-affiliations are meaningless tripe. If it is absolutely wrong for a woman to ever have an abortion, no amount of rational reasoning can remove the moral-bar from its position of permanence to the act itself.

Is morality itself a political subjective action? In the strict context of whose Natural Rights come first that answer is no— politics is the wrong avenue for moral-resolution. Abortion should have never been placed in that false-frame of political choice— it does not belong there at all. Morals and politics are oil to water. One never becomes the other. The question of that choice is private– a strictly, personal decision. Public funding of abortions changes the requirements, of that moral choice, in which the law is inserted to solve, when the choice requires public[k] medical assistance. In a private relationship of doctor to patient the root of the law is all about risks–not the moral question itself— who is responsible when things go wrong— as no doctor can publicly decide for a woman her own personal private-choice. She decides and only then comes the consequences. If woman are forced to have babies, can they be forced to have conceptions as well? On what point of the slippery-slope are they no longer deciding who is the donor, when or why?

Therefore, the moral-bar is not absolute, on the law side it is subjective–conditioned to context. If the mere idea of an abortion, actually promptly kills the mother, and by extension, the life in her womb, then one can say positively, the moral question was absolute by consequence. But was it right to kill the woman to punish her? If the preservation of life is to be the moral standard of the bar itself, harming the would-be mother produces an absurdity:  that her life is subordinate to all moral purpose, that all females are merely agents of the life-bearing process and have no say in its actual purpose. This is not a biological condition, it is an inferior, political demand, placed upon the condition itself to force a wrong moral-decision. Inferior, also due to the fact Nature does not care what the female decides. Nature is damningly indifferent to the suffering of the weakest, or survival of the lamest, would have long since replaced the fittest, as Natural law. Would be mothers have to make up their minds, and hearts, of what they feel is best for them personally, because their Life belongs to them alone, but that choice is also complicated by many other factors, which are impossible to judge as singular objectives.

Here is an example from the pro-life advocates, which was quoting Jesse Jackson on his previous stance:

“The fact that black leaders, like President Obama, support abortion rights does not change the reality of what is happening. How many candidates for public office have abandoned a prior conviction so as to be consistent with a party platform? This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Reverend Jesse Jackson’s flip-flop on abortion. Prior to having ambitions as a Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, he was an incredibly eloquent and outspoken opponent of abortion. Though his public stance on abortion has reversed, his earlier remarks remain as applicable as ever, and show that there is more than mere numbers at stake. Abortion attacks the “moral fabric” of an entire people. The following remarks come from his 1977 article for the National Right to Life News:

“The question of “life” is The Question of the 20th century. Race and poverty are dimensions of the life question, but discussions about abortion have brought the issue into focus in a much sharper way.

–How we will respect and understand the nature of life itself is the over-riding moral issue, not of the Black race, but of the human race.

–The question of abortion confronts me in several different ways. First, although I do not profess to be a biologist, I have studied biology and know something about life from the point of view of the natural sciences. Second, I am a minister of the Gospel and, therefore, feel that abortion has a religious and moral dimension that I must consider. Third, I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor) and therefore abortion is a personal issue for me.

–From my perspective, human life is the highest good, the summum bonum. Human life itself is the highest human good and God is the supreme good because He is the giver of life…

–There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of higher order than the right to life. I do not share that view. I believe that life is not private, but rather it is public and universal.

–If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your right to be concerned.

–Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.

… What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?

–It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.23″

So once again IF the moral hazard is faced solely by the female, she alone has to make the choice, because it is personal. Only females have the biological role of motherhood, so it is absurd to argue that premise, takes a back seat to proper reason because slavery was also a form of the “private” decision, not its sole and only root. He makes a sound moral argument so long as it remains from the religious perspective. Religion is a personal right—- the State cannot be the church, or its anti-proposition either. The State must see the Public as God. Not the other way around— the People created the government to Serve them— that control mechanism is called the Constitution–and despite all claims to the contrary, no member of the government, has any Authority to re-write the rules to their own needs of more power. The reference to the democratic platform— public and universal is also “Internationalism” in disguise. He mixed two absolutely different functions of a Right as if neither actually mattered.

If one understands free-will, then one has to accept the logical conclusion, that all actions of free-will are personal, if not, that is the root of real slavery. Is State induced-slavery really a better institution than old South-slavery? No… both are equally repulsive to free-will for the same reason. If the State blocks the free-will decisions of it Masters– the State has become the usurper of all Rights. How did a fiction ever become the dog that wags you the “Citizen” like its furry-tail? When people give up their Rights, the government is all too happy to concede your self-defeating choice in its favor. Black slavery ended a long time ago— citizen slavery took its place. How do moral right-leaders explain that southern-slavery was bad and public-slavery is good? Because it is Universal in scope–that alone makes it good? Why if everyone is a slave it has to be good and bad to be free? Slaves get to decide certain “choices” so long they OBEY the State, in every other regard? Slavery to the State is not acceptable to any free man–technically, it is also morally repugnant to God, and why does the left mock a dead one? Fear is a ruthless Master perhaps? Or maybe they have no comprehension of what those old leftist were in on as a joke?

If God is indeed superior to mankind, including those on the fictional-left of the fiction, then the Lord is also superior to any institution of mankind— period.  Jesus does not take orders from inferior beings in fancy white-houses. Or are those claiming the religious Belief, forsaking the Truth for false security? The State has no moral-authority, as it is a fiction devoid of any such internal Truth. Furthermore, the US federal cannot proclaim any such absurdity, or it is in lawful violation of the very separation of those two powers, one of which clearly preceded the other. Or did the State create the earth for itself? Which came first the United States or God? Left-wingers can only express one side of this contentious, yet wholly absurd issue— they have no Belief, and neither does their fictional servant turned ultimate Boss-man. The Left cannot take away personal–Unalienable– or Inalienable Rights— alienable which preceded the Constitution,  three-sets not one–so they dismiss what is always Unalienable[personal] sell-able[Inalienable] and claim it to be public[alienable]. The defect here is that the State has to be making a personal decision, only it cannot escape the Public[k]  fictional-square. The government as a Fictional Creature of mankind is a Savage— a dumb, brute with not one whit of conscience as its own.

Who pays for the “choice/result” of that private decision is where the rest of the contentious argument falls like a hammer to the nail. A wealthy female can afford the best medical care, and conversely, a poor one the least. If the law is silent on the moral questions of life fairness, must it remain so on the grounds it is only an economic one? The bitter contentions on each side of the choice demonstrates human society is not resolving the key issue, as much as it is recognizing, the lessor of two evils has to be allowed— the absolute laid bare is that the costs of one function of choice, is far less than, the other. The judicial process is inserted in that frame of consideration, because Life is not perfect. We do not live in a perfect world and such moral absolutes are often quite in-congruent with biological reality. Abortions are cheaper today, as opposed to the future costs of feeding, clothing, housing etc. the resulting child until adulthood. Does that make the moral hazard any less ambiguous? No.., the moral-hazard remains exactly where it is found and its consequence cannot be removed. Women who choose to have abortions make that decision knowing it cannot be taken back after the fact, suffer their own choices. As for the moral-consequences, they are beyond the scope of  human judgement. Females are naturally irrational— they do not listen to the best of advice and they are often quite capricious by habits. It is for these reasons that women must have that shadow of doubt, so reserved as a Right, or they have none worth preserving.

Thus, while the female of today must endure social retribution until the moral Tension is resolved, she must face that guilt alone. While the father may face some moral shame it is no doubt the female will endure the greater share of social and personal guilt. Now if a woman is in the political grouping, that finds no moral-hazard in the act of abortion, she faces little or no retributions from them. By the group policy, she had nothing to be ashamed about firstly, by the very same rules of acceptance, so her moral-hazard is zero regardless of choice. Group A [conservative] severely punishes the actions and group B [liberal] harbors no ill will to the action. Which political group will woman gravitate to by choice, as a function of social context and social status, of which wealth may not always be the single most defining criteria?

This quality of conditioning is not rocket science and models of human female behavior can be plotted with great accuracy so long as the underlying criteria are well founded by facts. Woman will gravitate to whatever social grouping “Accepts” them in the manner of least resistance, equals flow and action, to choices. Like a force of water running downhill, people move to the paths of least resistance, unless, there is a more compelling reason not to do so. Moral ambiguity lends itself well, to the splitting of hairs, but does not resolve the real problem— biology simply refutes all weaker, considerations of conscious.

The slippery-slope for women is therefore,  not the same for men— consequences so borne by every individual, actually determine the Right so required, not the State. Leftist are fundamentally challenged, by their own negligence of history or taking off their heads, would have silenced them a long, time ago— so they are caught in an absurdity, they only have the Right to Speak— their own minds— due to men who preserved that Right, in the face of resisting foreign powers, hell-bent on destroying those same Rights, even today. Does the word hypocrisy mean something else when a leftist speaks?

Is it morally correct to judge every woman who has ever had an abortion as immoral? How about life-style selfish? Is it really true that having no morals before and none after, forever casts that woman into the lake of burning sins, so to speak. Human life is already degraded to such an extent, that lake must be running out of room. When a man orders the murder of millions in the name of the State, and he believes he is god– so deciding who lives and who dies— his fate after Death is not public knowledge. Leftist have no means to fathom what they cannot discover by inferior reason. The Catholic church is not the source of answers either– another thorn in mans soul, whose poisonous effects serve the enemy of man well. When neither side can deal with the Truth of the problem— the enemy wins again. The pattern here is so old mankind wears it like wrinkled skin.

Taking away life for selfish reasons, to gain power, to add to wealth, or just to be evil in general is not a moral way to live, and yet, mankind under the banner of religion, communism, or any other ism of one kind or another, only seems to escape the consequences of their own deeds. Since dead men tell no tales, that leaves life to the living. The mass-destructive behaviors of mankind over the last two-hundred years, as the Old Empires went on a world-conquering quest, has perverted the real questions in ways, that require insanity to justify. The more insane the objectives became the more insane the party-politics had to contort the conscience, to appease the ego. Rulers with a pea-sized conscience had a mountain of money to change the social communities they sought to micro-manage thus control. Is it any wonder those social-rules had to become ever more  absurd, often to the extreme, thereby, to allow the forceful destruction of so many for the fortunes of the few? Killing people makes such evil men even richer than before— so they have no conscience to guide the intelligence, and their root-control of political-parties reflects their evil as mindless, distortions of public moral-choices. For them to look good honest people must be bad. Look at how bad Americans have had to be portrayed, over the last fifty-years, to turn the moral-anger inward like a knife.

In the case of cause and result— a more “liberal/communist” party or even a politically, softer stance is created the very moment any unyielding position stops a complete resolution of the moral-hazard back to full acceptance. The hard-right fully created the hard-left— as each party or social grouping forces political distancing to allow resolution to the Tension Function, which underlies every moment of human consciousness.  People are not unlike ‘bubbles’ whose internal pressures must equal out the external forces, at all times— a Tension by which actions are manifested by Will. The responses of external stimulus focus energies and if people are in highly, conflicted relationships, the emotional dial turns to aggression and anger to relive that Tension.

Political parties are in a way much like a road-map to the anger and hatred seething across the political landscapes, mostly due to the emotional negative-charge being stronger, and longer lasting, when it is never resolved. American political-parties do not resolve the Tensions of political discontent, they exacerbate them to produce even more violent conflicts which have long-term, harmful effects on social unity. In short, Americans hate each other and each leaf of that over-all hatred-tree is now a regulated patch of mental-turf— no hate speeches, no hating of race, no hating of protected minorities, is of course just another equal opportunity, protection racket. Of course, while making the larger class of white-males, especially so, the focus of absurd contradictions quite typical of reverse discrimination. Regulating any social malady of course requires never-ending victims. Far too many easily accept that role even as they violate the rules of normal society, on purpose.

Meanwhile, an  innocent white-male is politically lumped into a fictional social-class, regardless of individual actions or life-history, and judged by criteria, which are baseless in fact, or evidence, as if the general accusation was already too well proven to be even questioned— the result is State sanctioned positive-discrimination. Negative-discrimination is only based on lowering the moral-bar of personal choices— since the irrational is being foisted over the sane, anyone can be a victim of racial bias, so long as it is white by distinction. Lowering standards of behavior to accommodate bad, one-sided social maladjustment is madness turned inside out. Rewarding, the most undesirable traits, by legal fictions, turns the law into an ass of itself, and quickly, undermines any respect of the law. The law itself has been used in so many bad ways, the good ones seem extinct. The judicial process when it plays one set of cultural values against another, rarely is interested in Justice. The power is destroyed where it counts and puffed up where it is the least effective, and often enough, wretchedly absurd.

One would think a class of lawyers would see right through this never-ending nonsense and finally put an end to it before the harm to society escalates any further. And yet nothing happens, except more empty rhetoric and lies couched in right/leftist riddles. Why are only white people racist, when blacks instigate the crimes? Why is wrong to be too smart to be somebody’s fool? Do white people have too much self-respect to be dependent on inferior motives? Or simply because they hate the idea of never achieving their own goals? Maybe when people try harder to succeed in life, and as a positive consequence of their personal fortitude, they succeed where so many others fail. What motivates a man to be successful seems to be lost on the glib and the shallow-minded who cannot think for themselves, or conduct themselves by a firm moral-compass. If the only way a typical leftist, by rhetoric alone, can be touted as superior to such personal values, is to cheat on the false side of the argument, a straw-man in most cases, this weakness is preserved in the ever-declining standards of civil behavior, not just success. Civic responsibility seems to be a lost cause and the fools in DC have burned their own bridge back to sanity.

The fact that so many members of the House and Senate are Lawyers, also begs the question of why so many laws are so damn bad– left or right. I found the following quote to be quite relevant:

“I still contend that so much of the trouble is in this country is due to Lawyers being accepted as a part of the Legislative and the Executive branches of government. The way I see it, Lawyers are Officers of the Court—making them members of the Judicial branch of government. The US Constitution requires three distinct and separate branches of government, the separation of their powers is to protect us from any single branch of government gaining too much power or being able to vote themselves outrageous incomes.

So I believe it is unconstitutional for Lawyers to hold political office. It is also a conflict of interest to vote for anything you could directly profit from. Lawyers are the only ones that can always directly profit from the LAWS they write, because they are members of the branch of government that is paid to interpret and adjudicate the laws. By having Lawyers holding elected offices and being officers of the court, they are able to overtly fund all members of the Judicial branch of government including themselves. Not only by allowing excessive litigation, but also by structuring the laws to allow huge attorney awards, unrestrained jury awards along with excessive fees and fines charged by the courts. Can anyone currently serving as an officer in the military also serve as a legislator? No, because they are an officer of the Executive Branch (under the Commander an Chief). Why? Because they could help assure that the Commander an Chief gets all the funding he wants for the military. I feel they are violating the constitution and committing malfeasance by voting on the laws that make them or their branch of government money.

Only the House can in-act bills appropriating money, then the Senate must approve them, with currently 39% of the US Congressmen and 58% of US Senators with Law Degrees, I think the Judicial Branch is effectively appropriating the money to themselves. I know that I will never knowingly vote for any attorney, Republican or Democrat. Personally I believe this is a matter that the Supreme Court cannot hear because it would be a conflict of interest. It is up to us to vote them out. Do you want the Judicial branch representing all three branches of the government at the same time again? I know I don’t. We have a Constitution to protect with our votes. Remember the old adage – “Never trust a Banker, a Lawyer or a Politician.† So if you vote for a Politician who is also a Lawyer – you’ll get a double whammy in the pocketbook.” Greg Dickman http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/why-are-so-many.html

Another very interesting piece of historical curiosity, related to the point being made:

“In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven-year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history — the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.”


The question is does Esquire equal a Title of Nobility— Ben Franklin was an Esquire, but did that really mean he was serving a foreign power?

“An extraordinary meeting was held at Benjamin Franklin’s home on Friday, May 11, 1787, to hear an outline for the economic policy and national mission that the United States Constitution should be designed to carry out.

The tight-knit grouping of American nationalists who had directed the Revolutionary War would use this policy paper to instruct the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, scheduled to open three days later.

The essay begins with the words quoted above, which speak to us with special urgency in the present world crisis. It has never been published since 1787, and has been retrieved from an archival copy for the present report. It is entitled “An Enquiry into the Principles on which a Commercial System for the United States Should be Founded, Read before the Society for Political Enquiries, Convened at the House of His Excellency Benjamin Franklin, Esquire, in Philadelphia May 11, 1787.”

After Franklin and his colleagues approved it, the then-anonymous author, Philadelphia merchant Tench Coxe, dedicated it thus: “To the Honorable the Members of the Convention, assembled at Philadelphia for federal Purposes, this Essay is most respectfully inscribed by Their obedient and Most humble Servant, The Author, May 12, 1787.”

[The treaty with Britain formally ending the American Revolutionary War was signed Sept. 3, 1783. But the nominally independent U.S.A. was threatened with catastrophe. To prevent American creation of independent industry, the British immediately began dumping cheap manufactures in U.S. markets, selling goods at lower prices than they charged inside England, despite the costs of ocean transport.

Morris and Hamilton proposed a 5% national tariff on imports to finance the otherwise destitute government and to begin to protect American manufacturing. But various anti-national state leaders opposed giving Congress the power to tax.]

This additional quote sheds some more light on Mr. Franklin’s position concerning the governments right to tax:

–Franklin responded angrily to reports of the “anti-tax” arguments raised against the right of the people to a national self-government. He wrote:

“All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”[3]

His angry retort makes it quite clear, that he viewed the Public(k) as the final authority, but here lies an interesting contradiction, the Savage, sitting in his temporary cabin, sure does not sound like the man sitting in his landed Estate. So unless, one is paying for the Right one does not have one? Which faction would be on Mr. Franklin’s doorstep with an invitation to join them? Certainly not those Savages, to whom he expresses his contempt. He makes a point of the Welfare of the Public(k) not the Creature of public Convention? Why is there a distinction between these two seemingly same terms? A few more quotes about Mr. Franklin, Esquire:

“For many years he was the British postmaster for the colonies, which enabled him to set up the first national communications network. He was active in community affairs, colonial and state politics, as well as national and international affairs. From 1785 to 1788, he served as governor of Pennsylvania. Toward the end of his life, he freed his own slaves and became one of the most prominent abolitionists.

–During Franklin’s lifetime slaves were numerous in Philadelphia. In 1750, half the persons in Philadelphia who had established probate estates owned slaves. Dock workers in the city consisted of 15% slaves. Franklin owned as many as seven slaves, two males of whom worked in his household and his shop. Franklin posted paid ads for the sale of slaves and for the capture of runaway slaves and allowed the sale of slaves in his general store. Franklin profited from both the international and domestic slave trade, even criticizing slaves who had run off to join the British Army during the colonial wars of the 1740s and 1750s. Franklin, however, later became a “cautious abolitionist” and became an outspoken critic of landed gentry slavery. In 1758, Franklin advocated the opening of a school for the education of black slaves in Philadelphia. After returning from England in 1762, Franklin became more anti-slavery, in his view believing that the institution promoted black degradation rather than the idea blacks were inherently inferior. By 1770, Franklin had freed his slaves and attacked the system of slavery and the international slave trade. Franklin, however, refused to publicly debate the issue of slavery at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Similar to Thomas Jefferson, Franklin tended to take both sides of the issue of slavery, never fully divesting himself from the institution.[147][148]Wikipedia
As for Nobility and Esquires— purely British/European by origin:

“The “title of nobility” was prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1788). Although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810 and was finally ratified in 1819 (The 13th Amendment to the constitution).

–Here is the reason why. According to the Tennessee laws 1715-1820, Vol. 11, p. 774, in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American Revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it, Congress was outraged and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so Federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. We had whipped the British and now our Senators had been bribed to serve the British Monarchy and betray the American people. That is subversion.

–The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the start, but the Federalists (the pro-monarch party) won out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 with 80% owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid capital) it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers, since they could lend and collect interest (usury) on $10,000,000 that did not exist.

–The European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796 the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, the U S government owned no stock in the United States Bank).

–The power and ability of the banks to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when it was discovered European banking owned 80% of the bank. Congress refused to renew the bank charter, which led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 by European investors. This caused a recession and the War of 1812.” http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-pen.htm

“Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown….for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman.” Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

One can conclude that being a savage was not to be confused with being a gentlemen— as perceived by the social class by which such a distinction is of merit. Savages having no merit of class distinction are left to ponder why their Natural Rights are limited and the Nobles extended, by virtue of birth/class/wealth alone. For it must be assumed if there is no distinction why bother with any Title at all? Why affix a class Right if it meant nothing? It can also be assumed, after Franklin became a member of the Whig Club and a Mason, he was long since removed from the “Savage” category, and as a slave-owner he was well aware of differences, that such “privileges” of said Titles, had in regards to peerage, and social-status. Old Ben was a sharp-minded man, that is quite clear, but was he playing the American savages right into the hand of British-Crown interests? To have the power to tax is to give the power to destroy.

Perhaps old Ben might have quipped,”To lay taxes, on free men, to pay back British bank-debt incurred by liars and frauds, is a folly, no wise man will endure for long.”

And yet here we are hundreds of years down the road, and not as wise men, but practically as chattel tax-slaves, pretending that we labor for ourselves, while our “dollar” which shrinks in one measure on our side, and expands by another for Lenders. The FRN dollar is a creature of its ultimate purpose, which is to extract more value, than what it can give by true exchange. If a liberal, or a conservative both pay the same tax on fuel–they are equals by that measure of Law, regardless of how they see one another across the aisle, as political opponents. No matter how each side degenerates the other the same problems continue unresolved, as neither side has the power to change the rules, which harm both, unequally. Like a game where the players have recognized they are being punished, for being too good at the game, they must become more mediocre, to escape the whip. This downward trend is a result of a cause long since removed from view. No political discussion can touch upon the root for it has been declared forever untouchable. Instead, people are conditioned to exploit their party affiliation, compete at every turn, denounce cooperation in any real form and embrace the fury of scorn, laid bare, as the best political strategy. Well, political correctness, actually does not allow any speech which criticizes the upper-stiff lipped Masters.

The “Politics Stinks Club” is always looking for new members. Considering how many might already think — politics stinks— membership is bound to be quite significant, unofficially of course. As for that Smart-Money—  in any artificial system, where the intrinsic value has been removed— the fiction of debt is leveraged against labor. Labor has become the intrinsic value of debt— or debt is worthless. Taxes increase by scope and amount while actual labor dollars diminish— a dumb dollar is a result. The dollar is so dumb it cannot find the price of anything including itself— to any degree of fairness much less truth. Bankers love dumb-dollars, due to the fact interest-gained from nothing is smart— and quite profitable as a political-law based Racket. A Smart-Dollar defends both the labor and the saver— so banks will not use this dollar– so this dollar must circulate outside of the bank system— the exchange-value point will require a severe battle to establish— the syndicate will use every means at its disposal to keep a Smart-Dollar from freeing people from a Dumb-one.

People will only need one Smart-Dollar— any numerical value is exchanged— much like a credit-card. Coins are still used as change. So you have one S-D Note— any purchase is possible up to the amount of the Hold/account for that Owner of Money. You own the Money–so you own the Smart-dollar— no transaction fee— no use fee– no inflation disguised as debt servicing or volume manipulations of the Notes themselves. Security is built-in— think quantum index-coding— every face is unique to the Owner— on the back perhaps the State Bank Seal— as it may be the only way to circumvent the monopoly of the FED. If money is money and not an artificial or arbitrary–then it is fungible in any form which can sustain the Value-Metrics of its use. The Sum of all such Value-Metrics is the intrinsic worth— banks are all to happy to destroy wealth by simply ignoring any value they cannot use for profit. The Value of labor is contentious, but if people are ever to escape the yoke of debt-slavery, the evolvement of the “Money” must proceed that moment. Otherwise, that worthless piece of cotton-linen, regardless  of its baseless face-value— a one has no more intrinsic value than a hundred— they both cost four cents to print— the bubble of fictional value is an absurdity— therefore, it has no real money exchange value, only fiat demand value per transaction accounting. The trick is to only use the numbers, as if real, while ignoring the fictional-form in which they are presented.

A dollar token is dumb— a Smart-Dollar is a Sovereign expression of Unalienable Rights— money is Unalienable when saved—-Inalienable when Sold, Earned or Traded and Alienable when loaned or rented for Public Use. Money goes through these phases while remaining intrinsic to its purpose— it must remain as money, or it ceases to be anything at all. A Smart-Dollar will be made of a material not yet possible–think graphene–plus hologram and technically, can be any 3-D shape, not just a flat, paper design.  Like everything else it starts with the most basic shape and evolves from there— the main thing is that it cannot be counterfeited, or stolen— micro-metallic printing being another possibility for security purposes.

The main feature is that it is independent of false market-manipulations, divorced from the debt-syndicate, useable for legit taxes, payments, and long-term value storage. Instead of receiving a payroll check, the value is directly transferred and is ready to go. If the world goes dark–point to point transactions is still possible between Smart-dollars— no exterior system is needed. Nations need to evolve their intra-national transactions as well— money needs to be smarter across the board, and all Time/asset value-considerations need to be massively over-hauled to regain proportionate balance. The old-money racket is the disease and its cure is consignment to the dust bin of history.




Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Politically Incorrect Sanity”

  1. Lyndaaustin7 Says:

    Been saying this for a long time.


Leave a Reply

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: