The EXEGETIST: A Library Of Independent Political Thought. By: Jack H. Dawsey

Modern Politics: Is It Extreme?

By: Jack Dawsey

Does it seem or appear to you that today’s American politics are too ruckus, extreme and negative?  I think so.

In 2004 when I resigned my post as a republican county commissioner, (Carteret County, NC), I renounced the Republican Party and published an article.  In that article, I established the issue that my party; with whom I had been member 40-years, had been hijacked by extremists and radicals –much like the Democratic Party was overtaken in the 1960’s.

It’s been 6-years since that publication, and I’m more convinced now than ever of my arguments.

Today; as an Independent (and in jest), I poke fun at my Republican and Democrat friends.  I tell them that my original birth certificate DISQUALIFIES me from being a member of their party.  They ask, “How so?”  And I say “Because my birth certificate has my real daddy’s name recorded on it.”

I could cite a ream of paper showing the rank hypocrisy in today’s politics, (both parties), but for this editorial consider this:

For example, there are some very radical Republicans that claim their party is best because it believes in a smaller government and fewer taxes. According to them, their party is more frugal and against government deficit spending.  Their actions belie their words because they provide tax cuts to the richest corporations, while growing the military and expanding the government.

They say, “Cut government programs…” but refuse to identify the programs to cut, i.e., Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the Military Industrial Complex; that together, make up the preponderance of the federal budget. Besides, when republicans had the opportunity to reduce the federal budget, 1994-2006, they didn’t.  Instead, they borrowed money (and increased the deficit) by starting new programs like Medicare Part D, and engaging a war without paying for it.

Their government savings philosophy is much like the metaphor of trying to pack 10-lbs of horse manure into a 5-lb bag.  Republicans like to argue that government doesn’t work, and when they’re elected, sure enough, they prove it.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party is the author of the corrupt “put and take” system.  “You put the money in it, and they take it out.”   

Their corruption is much like the ole country boy and the slick political banker.  If a country boy stiffs a political banker of $250,000, he gets 15-years in state prison. But when the political banker slicks the country boy of $250,000, his bank merges with a larger, and the governor promotes the banker politician to head up the state banking commission. Isn’t it about time to ask some pointed questions to both political parties?

Since Republicans claim to believe in a non-intrusive government, will they agree to privately fund and build the nation’s interstate highway system, or the nation’s bridges, tunnels, railroads, and public school and transportation system?  And since they rant against socialism, even draw you into a “fist-a-cuff” over the use of the word, socialism, shouldn’t they ask their members to return their Social Security checks, and demand their aging mother or grandmother, (receiving Medicaid or Medicare) to be removed from that socialist government program?

Moreover, since Republicans claim that they hold a monopoly on the virtues of capitalism and a free market economy, shouldn’t they be more responsible in Congress and stop the nation’s trade imbalance from the slave economies of the world, like China?    

And finally, my advice to the “put and take” democrats is: “write the state institution from where they received their Political Science Degree and demand a CASH REBATE.  They got gypped!    

www.theexegetist.com

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By: Michael Sperry

Through careful observation and diligent listening to the arguments of those opposed to changing the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy for gays in the military, it appears to me that those opposing this policy are identical to those people who ostensibly support a military equal to none. Yet, these same people, in deference to their own sexual insecurities (OMG! if I support changing this policy someone might think that I am gay; or worse, I support Obama) would deny the military the necessary tools to conquer our enemies in the “War on Terror” thus causing unnecessary casualties; civilian and military.

Continuing this policy would deprive that same military of the services of people that it desperately requires; e.g. language specialists fluent in those dialects and languages spoken in the Middle East and western Asia. After a rational analysis; does the current policy serve the national security interests of our nation; at home or abroad?  sperry@mcdonaldco.k12.mo.us

American Corporations and the Supreme Court

 Part 2

 How We Got Here

By: Jack Dawsey

As I stated in the first installment, the word Corp’ocracy, (replacing the word Democracy), may appear in the next edition of Webster’s New College Dictionary.  It’s because the United States Supreme Court’s most recent 5 to 4 decision (January 21,  2010) in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removed long-established legal barriers preventing corporations and unions from spending unlimited sums of money to influence voters in political campaigns.

Heretofore, politicians had to arguably show that they and their political campaigns were not owned by American corporations.  But the court’s ruling actually stacks the deck against peoples of all political stripes now.  It enables corporations to buy (themselves) a Congress. How did we get here?

Some contend that the founders of the nation did not like corporations.  Clearly, for the first 100-years, it seems corporations were given only limited “privileges” and not “rights.”  Only persons had rights under the law.

But after the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1868, (an Amendment that extended equal protection under the law to all male citizens of the U.S regardless of race), the mischief began.

Because of the 14^th Amendment, corporate attorneys seized the moment.  In earnest, they began to advocate for “corporate personhood.”   Finally in 1886, the opportunity presented itself in: The County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR). 

The substance of that case was not so much “corporate personhood” but deducting mortgage costs on (SPRR’s) vast holdings.  But, as in all legal decisions “words” have consequences.

In that 1886 case, Chief Justice Waite said, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.  We are all of the opinion that it does.”   

It seems that this one statement laid the golden egg for corporate attorneys.  This one single sentence likely changed the frame of North American politics. It laid the foundation of corruption by recognizing corporations as “persons” and not as “things” which the founders of the nation intended.

The irony is that in his “official stations Judge Waite was able, upright, and impartial; in private life he was just and true, pure in his morals, exemplary in his habits, and faithful in the discharge of all his duties.” -Google

Wittingly or unwitting, Judge Waite may have set the course to thwart the noble experiment of government “for, of, and by” the people.   And to think that less than 25-years before he uttered his words, this nation engaged in a great civil war.  A war that spilled the blood of 620,000 of this nation’s best and brightest to preserve Lincoln’s assertion: “That this nation shall not perish from the earth…”

I believe, as many other advocates of representative government, that the (little noticed) decision of January 21^st 2010 to apply the 1^st Amendment (and by extension the 14^th Amendment) to corporations put the finishing nail in America’s political coffin.

Unless a true and independent 3^rd political party is given birth in this country, a vote for a republican or a democrat in November is, (in my opinion), no more than a gesture in pretense for democracy.

American Corporations and the Supreme Court

Part- 1

 By: Jack Dawsey

The word, Corp’ocracy, (replacing the word Democracy), may soon appear in Webster’s New College Dictionary.  It’s because the United States Supreme Court’s most recent 5 to 4 decision (January 21^st, 2010) in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removed long-established legal barriers preventing corporations and unions from spending unlimited sums of money to influence voters in political campaigns.  The court’s ruling actually stacks the deck against peoples of all political stripes because it enables corporations to buy our democracy.

President Franklin Roosevelt, 32^nd President of the United States, forewarned against such action.  He said that a government by organized money is just as evil as a government by organized mob.

The recent court ruling is a game-changer.  It will alter the makeup of the United States Congress.

Corporations were already beneficiaries of high-priced lobbyists, but now wield more influence than ever before imaginable.  With the court’s decision, there is no limit on corporate contributions and the multinationals can, in essence, buy the senator or congressman of their choice.  In the event a lawmaker was courageous enough to vote for legislation that favored a citizen over a corporation, they now have the legal green light to step in and lend support to an opponent.

For over 150-years the American school system has taught that the United States was a government “of, by, and for the people.”   The 16^th President rallied the nation to join in a great civil war so that this nation would not perish from the earth.  The court’s decision has set at naught Mr. Lincoln’s political assertion.

Once and for all, corporations will turn democracy on its head; thence, the name Corp’ocracy.

This nation will be exclusively owned by capitalists, and dictated by boards of directors from without.  Let me explain.

The once, industrialized United States has moved (with its jobs) to foreign soil.  Even their minimal paying jobs -including the lowly answering machine service- are in India, the Philippines, and the Dominican Republic.

Baseballs, golf shoes, and other sports equipment -once made in America- are manufactured elsewhere.  The Texas giant Halliburton is in Dubai, (apparently where bedfellow Dick Cheney can retire in obscene luxury).  Countless others have relocated overseas.

In my opinion, the U.S. government has been hollowed out by republicans and democrats and their willing corporate minions, including their well organized PACS, lobbyists, and other “operative” organizations.  The court’s ruling legally seals the deal.  Meanwhile, we argue over which political party will take us to the dance in November.

The news media is about the only mega- corporation remaining on America soil, and that for a reason, for example.

If  you watch FOX your fair and balanced decisions are filtered through the eyes of a neo-conservative, Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO.  Or if you watch NBC, your mindset is fed the predisposition of General Electric, or the cable giant of Time/Warner, CNN.  Or, if you watch ABC your children are fed Disney’s Mickey Mouse fantasy.  And CBS reminds its programming staff that Edward R. Murrow is dead; therefore, he cannot haunt their liberal decisions.  The other giant, Viacom, is preparing our children for financial slavery by gorging them on a diet of MTV and B.E.T.  

When did Congress last approve legislation, (or the Supreme Court decided a case), where wealth was not at stake?   And now with the blessings of the high court, American corporations are on a perfect glide path to control the last remaining pillar of our democracy, the election.

I think the words of Justice John Stevens are probably correct.  He said in his dissent that the court’s ruling threatens the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.  dawseyjh@embarqmail.com

Next Installment, Part-2, “How We Got Here”

The Mother of Ponzi

By: Jack Dawsey

Ponzi Scam: “A fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. The scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors -as long as there are more new investors.”

While that’s the technical definition of a Ponzi scam, it has broader applications.  For example, imagine yourself with the legal authority to create money without having to manufacture anything of worth.   And afterwards, have the ability to invest the money in tax-free foreign government corporations, or tax free bonds, or betting on Black-Jack in Vegas.  And if you lose the money at the tables, not to worry, you have the authority to print more. Isn’t that impossible?  Not really. The Federal Reserve System, in collaboration with a democrat and republican Congress do it all the time.  While the Congress authorizes to increase the nation’s debt ceiling, the Feds print the money.

Our modern monetary system has evolved (for the worse) into an incestuous relationship between the Congress of the United States and the private banking cartel, known as the Federal Reserve. [By the way, the Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor is it a Reserve.  It’s a private corporation].  

Don’t sit with baited breath waiting for the media, or a political party, or a prominent figure within the party to expose this relationship.  Most reporters don’t understand the process well enough to even challenge it, and fewer understand the nature of unredeemable paper currency.

The American people are under the misconception that their currency –otherwise known as a Federal Reserve Note- has sustaining value.  Fact is the dollar is worth no more than a promise IOU from the Congress.  Your dollar is “virtual” money.  It has little to no future redeeming value as in the day of your father, or when you were in grade school.  Bottom line:  all U.S. currency issued today is “Fed Notes.”

The only backing for a Fed Note is: (a) the “trust in God” motto and (b), the stability of a global economy.  Personally, I don’t think the economy is very stable, do you?  And I’m reasonably sure that a blind trust, predicated on money, does not favorably impress or get the attention of the Lord. 

Today, the dollar is practically worthless.  If you don’t believe me, try redeeming your “Fed Note” in silver or gold at your local bank.  Or, hold that single piece of Legal Tender until the end of the first quarter, i.e. March 31 or the next quarter, 30 June 2010, and see how much food it will buy at the supermarket.

In short, (and in my opinion), our current monetary system is based purely on a lie, or if you prefer a softer term, faith.   Lie or faith, “We the people…” are betrayed; more importantly, our grandchildren.     

In trade for the abundance of these newly issued Fed Notes, your grandchildren will inherit an egregious debt.  Slavery or financial bondage, whichever term you prefer, they can’t recover from this debt.  In exchange, Congress tells us they’re creating “shovel-ready” jobs.  We’re told that they are going to recover the jobs that America lost in manufacturing to Mexico, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, China, and Taiwan, and that more jobs in sales are on the horizon.  (By the way, it was a republican and democrat Congress that took these jobs from us in the fist place, and sent them to these foreign countries).  I’m waiting for another yarn from this President and our U.S. Congress telling me they’re creating more jobs in the screen-door industry –screens to fit the door of a submarine.   

Lastly, and in my opinion, if  we’re going to print reams and reams and reams of Fed Notes, and drive our nation deeper in debt, how about insisting that in exchange for these Fed Notes that we get something of value, such as the construction of new schools, or repairing bridges and overpasses, or constructing new interstate highways? How about in exchange they manufacture high speed trains -as in Europe and Asia- trains that travel 200MPH?   Shucks, the draining of the swamps in Florida and Georgia to rid them of pesky mosquitoes is better than the present IOU system.   

In closing, let’s stimulate the U.S. economy -not the Federal Reserve, or the investment bankers on Wall Street.  And by all means, we ought not to stimulate another democrat or republican Congress with a Déjà Vu vote in November.

Nothing ain’t worth nothing, but it’s free

By: Jack Dawsey

The year 2010 and the beginning of a new decade are upon us.  Will it bring us the old saying, another year older and deeper in debt?  I hope not.  But with the continuation in the falling value of the dollar, and a possible repeat of the Bush decade, i.e. President Obama using Bush and Clinton retreads in his administration, is cause for concern. 

From a moral point of view, I suggest we call the first decade of this millennium the decade of debauchery, thievery and war.  It was a decade of bobble-heads on TV and their display of rudeness.  It was a decade of lobbyists filling the pockets of politicians in the U.S. Congress.  And it was a decade of being introduced to the adulterous affairs of preachers, governors, lawmakers and athletes. 

From a political point of view, the decade was one of empty promises, and a whole lot of nothing with respect to economic progress and recovery for taxpayers. 

As the new begins, there is a sense (albeit a false sense in my opinion) of economic and political optimism in America.  There is the belief that we Americans, more than anyone else in the world, know what we’re doing.  Let me quote from a speech that Mr. Lawrence Summers, then deputy Treasury Secretary of the United States and now President Obama’s top economist, said. 

According to the New York Times, (and I paraphrase), he said that if you ask why the American financial system is so successful it’s because there is no innovation more important than our audit system.  He further stated that our Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) insures that every investor gets to review corporate information, that our political and economic system has management discipline not found in foreign governments, and that we Americans report “the bottom line” accurately.

Is Mr. Summers saying our current American system is honest and transparent?  Is he saying we taxpayers ought not to be alarmed or to be concerned because our system breeds responsible managers and honest politicians that make sound decisions on our behalf?  If so, I have an Alaskan igloo condominium on Miami Beach to sell. 

But frankly what’s really impressive about this past decade is the nation’s willingness NOT to learn.  It seems the only thing history teaches is: “We don’t learn from history.  Or, we don’t learn from our mistakes.” For example:  even while the George Bush bubble was bursting near the end of the decade, Wall Street bankers were creating another.  Even after major corporations like Enron, WorldCom, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and the Federal Reserve gave us Ponzi-like financial schemes, we didn’t learn, and they moved on to create another.

Even after democrat and republican policies triggered a global economic collapse, (only to be rescued by taxpayers), the U.S. Congress wasted no time getting back to its corrupt culture.  Even now the democrat majorities in Congress, (President Obama included), refuse to give us a full accounting on the failures of Wall Street and the collapse of our financial system. 

By the way, I give no pass to the Republicans in this matter. They are equally culpable.  Have you noticed since the George Bush debacle, that Republican partisans blush when the name, Republican, is mentioned?  Instead, they brag, boast and cloak themselves under the code word: conservative.  What they mean is “they are conservative with their own personal money, but very liberal in the spending of yours.”   Even today, they still insist on playing but three strings on their five string banjo. (a) More tax cuts. (b) Just say no to Obama and (c) politicize the war.

So let’s bid adieu to the decade of corruption, where we achieved nothing and learned nothing, and welcome 2010 where nothing ain’t worth nothing, but it’s free.

What’s In A Name?

By: Jack Dawsey

“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”-Matthew1:21.

The name, Jesus, was given to our Lord because of the work He must and shall perform.  In other words, “He SHALL save his people…”  Note: The Scripture doesn’t say that Jesus will “attempt” to save his people, or that he will “try” to save, or that he will “make a way” to save, or that he will be a “mentor” to them that are saved, or he saves “if allowed” to save, or he “begs” sinners to “let” him save.  Rather, the Scripture is clear Jesus “SHALL SAVE…”  

The word shall is an auxiliary verb, meaning determination or finality of promise.  It has a fixed and binding meaning (hence; the term shall is used extensively in legal documents).  The word cannot and must not be augmented.

In the original Hebrew language (and among the ancient Jews), the name Jesus means savior.  The word “savior” has its root in the original “Oshea” (see 13^th Chapter of the Book of Numbers).  There, you’ll discover that Moses prefixed the first syllable of Jehovah’s name, “Jeh” to Oshea changing it to Jehoshea: meaning Divine Savior or Redeemer.  The name was soon contracted to Joshua because none would be so presumptuous to be called by Jehovah’s title. 

As the name Joshua passed through the Greek language, (and subsequent tongues), it was shorten to Je’zes or Jesus, the savior.   As Joshua was a “type” of savior, Jesus is the real savior.  The type was replaced with the antitype.  As Joshua was a captain of ancient Israel, Jesus is the real captain of His people, the believer.  Jesus is Divine because He is the one, true Jehoshea, chosen of God.

Let us notice the circumstances in the giving of the name Jehoshea (Gk. Ie’sous or je’zes) to the savior.  It was neither Mary nor Joseph that provided the name to their newborn son.  It was given by God Himself.  Not once but twice did God reveal this precious name.  He gave it first in a message to Mary and afterwards to Joseph.  It is remarkable that his name was affixed by the angels BEFORE he was conceived in the womb of Mary.  Obviously, the angels knew Jehoshea or ‘Jesus’ by that name in heaven, and continued to call him Jesus while He was formed in the womb.  Therefore, what’s in a name, particularly the name Jesus?

First, I suggest it reveals the character of the Son of God.  It shows the high esteem of His Father.  Consider this with respect to the naming of Jesus.  If the angels of God came to earth to do God’s bidding, isn’t that proof-positive of the Father’s esteem?  Isn’t it sufficient proof that the mind of God dwells in his beloved Son, and that He delights in Him with the highest pleasure much like a proud father would dote over his earthly son?

Consider this with respect to Jesus’ baptism.  The Father said “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”  In other places, the Father calls Jesus, “Mine Elect” or the “Elect” or “My beloved in whom my soul delights.”  Therefore, we have sufficient reason to believe the Father esteems His Son with such high regard due to the “finality” in the triumphant work He assigned him in redemption.  In redemption, Jesus unites the unholy with the holy, no small feat.  Nothing is more pleasing to Jehovah Father than to see His Darling Son manifest the outpouring of the Father’s love to sinners.  There is no greater love.  He said it best:  Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends…

But the root, Jehoshea, says something else.  It shows that God would have us regard Jesus as the only savior and redeemer.  Unlike modern theology taught in the schools of academia where Jesus is portrayed as a good man, or a prophet, the original manuscript identifies Jesus as “savior.”  The apostle’s writings are clear too:  “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we MUST be saved.” -Acts-4:12.

The name Joshua or Jehoshea is descriptive of God’s saving nature.  As Joshua replaced Moses, Jesus replaced all “types” and “shadows” and SAVED. 

He accomplished a work that neither Moses nor Oshea nor any could do because it required propitiation.  Propitiation is a distinctive work of atonement that none but Jesus was qualified to do.  He came to earth not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him, namely “to save.” By the way, Jesus either accomplished His Father’s will or He didn’t.  If He didn’t accomplish, then he’s an imposter.  On the other hand, if he redeemed and saved as the Scripture declares, he is the captain of salvation.  In summary, the name Jesus is ordained and affixed by his heavenly Father; hence, the reason his name is precious in the heart of believers.

In closing, here’s a “what-if” quiz for you.  What if it was mandated for you to abandon every name in your family tree, but one, which would you lay aside?  What if you were required to renounce every name among your relatives, including kings, queens and priests, but one, whom would you lay aside?  The language of the poet suits many.

“Jesus, thou art the sinner’s friend,

 As such I look to Thee,

Now in the bowels of thy love,

 O Lord, remember me.”

“Remember thy pure word of grace,

Remember Calvary,

Remember all thy dying groans,

 And then remember me.”

“Thou wondrous advocate with God,

 I yield myself to thee,

While thou art sitting on thy throne,

O Lord, remember me.”

“I own I’m guilty, own I’m vile,

Yet salvation’s free,

Then in thy all abounding grace,

O Lord, remember me.”

“Howe’er forsaken or distressed,

Howe’er oppressed I be,

Howe’er afflicted here on earth,

Do thou remember me.”

“And when I close my eyes in death,

And creature helps all flee,

Then, O’ my great Redeemer God,

I pray remember me.” -Unknown.

Euro-English, Anyone?

(Submitted by a Friend)

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.  As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as “Euro-English”.

In the first year, “s” will replace the soft “c”. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard “c” will be dropped in favour of “k”. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome “ph” will be replaced with “f”. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.  Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.  Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent “e” in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing “th” with “z” and “w”with “v”.

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary “o” kan be dropd from vords kontaining “ou” and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.  Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.  If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl.

Show Me The Money

By: Jack Dawsey

Doubtless, the central banks of America, Europe, and Asia are the economic engines of the modern world.    Some good is generated from these banks.  For example, without their existence more 3^rd world countries would populate the earth.  But in today’s market, the central banks have become corrupt again much as they were in the Middle Ages.

Did you know that banks, from their early beginnings, proved to be the repository of a nation’s wealth?  And did you know that the earliest banks were the source of financial manipulations?  The clients of the early Renaissance Banks, for example, were mostly Kings, Queens, and families of Nobility. 

The Kings and their designated warriors required loans to fund their military exploits, whose aim was conquest.  It’s no coincidence that clients of the early banking industry required protection from adversaries.  The history of Europe is replete with bankrupt Kings and Queens who borrowed from banks, only to discover that the same bank funded their adversary in military adventures.  It’s no secret that banks funded wars among nations, that banking became the vehicle for potential expansion opportunities of Kings and Nobles, and that those banks supported the earliest idea of a standing army.   It should be noted at this juncture in this editorial that among one of the earliest functions of banks was the financing of wars, that lending and funding war exploits became so profitable it diminished the sole requirement of deposits from Nobles.  And that, as a result of war-mongering, control of the banking industry was relegated in the hands of a few private, family businesses.  Wars among nations generated enormous wealth and put great political power in the hands of a selected few. 

While the banking industry has changed in the modern world, the essence of financial collaboration and manipulation has not.  It’s become worse and more widespread.  Interestingly, the earliest families of nobility, for example the French Rothschild’s, were the lending business arm and source of war of the middle Ages.  Continuity and private ownership has continued in the industry.  But today, (unknown) banks and/or their private (unknown to the public) subsidiaries hold mortgage bundles and liens on commercial and private property, and other major economic interests on American society.

Did you know that the Federal Reserve System, (thought by many to be a U.S. Government Agency), is actually a privately owned corporation?   Similarly, the World-Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are conglomerates controlled by a few.  It should also be noted that when the United States decides how much currency it allows in circulation, the decision is essentially made by the collaboration of a few.  Did you know that when the U.S. Government goes into debt to finance an operations, (whether it’s war, or peace, or Medicare Part D, or the new health care reform program, or stimulus bailouts), it issues monies borrowed, including borrowing from the central banks of Europe and Asia, particularly China? Did you know that China plays an integral role in the financing of America’s interest and debt today, and that Republican President Richard Nixon opened our doors to China?  And did you know that as a result of the excessive democrat and republican borrowing and spending, YOUR dollar at the super market is weaken, that YOUR 401-K Savings Plan is diminished, that YOUR IRA is essentially worthless, and that YOUR most prized hard asset of all, YOUR house and private property, is devalued?

In summary, the major banks of the world, particularly the commercial banks on Wall Street have only a few key players.  They exercise enormous power within the Military Industrial Complex, (the subject of another, forthcoming, editorial), and they exercise obscene political power over YOUR U.S. Congressman or Congresswoman.  It cannot be under stated that these institutions, together and in collaboration, greatly influence the political entities and political actions of the world, including famine and war.

Finally; in closing, President Harry S. Truman is quoted as saying the danger to democracy comes not from the masses, but from the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and the Income Tax is the best remedy to solve that problem.  Truman is further quoted saying that if a 90% tax was levied on income similar to the 90% threshold on income over $100,000 to fight World War II, that the American government could live up to its responsibility to its own citizens.  As a result of the World War II tax, the nation didn’t have a tax-burden.  The nation was debt free.  And look at the enormous prosperity the post war period brought Americans.  Where are those debt free days today? 

With respect to the current concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, there’s only one way to stop and win the current war on terror.  First, impose the WW-II, 90% Income Tax threshold and reopen Alcatraz. Put the tax dodgers in that isolated slammer and you’ll see an immediate improvement to the nation’s financial dilemma.  The other immediate by-product of that tax policy will cause the “banksters” on Wall Street to stop this war, pronto.

In Modern America, Do Elections Matter?

By: Jack Dawsey

Political elections come and go.  Soon, another cycle will follow and many political operatives will go bonkers over “their” candidate.  To hear the radio and television ads, one will think Obama is on the ballot.  They’ll demand for you to vote Republican.  Others will extol Obama’s virtue, and recommend to you to vote Democrat.  Neither will be true.  For example, the most recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and the House of Representative candidate in New York prove it.  What really occurred in those states is true in all elections.  In the case of Virginia and New Jersey, for example, the majority of Democrats was not enthused about their candidate and did not turn out.  The Republicans won.  In the New York House race, the people simply rejected the likes of Conservative Doug Hoffman, and his supporting cast of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sara Palin.  But in modern America, do elections really matter with respect to the betterment of, “We, the people?”

There is such a thing in the political world as gerrymandering or redistricting.  As we speak gerrymandering is occurring, and the politicians in power are redistricting their power base to benefit their personal need, and not yours.  By the way, the Republicans did it when they were in power.  In modern America, there is no difference between the Dum’o’rats and the Re’pub’a’thugs -as I affectionally call them.  They are merely two different sides of the same One-Eyed-Jack.  [Have you ever noticed that you can only see one eye of the Jack of Spades in a deck of cards?]  The Jack is like your typical Republican and Democrat politician.  You only see one side of them at a time. 

Whether Obama or McCain, or Bush or Gore, they are controlled.  Corporate and Wall Street Banksters always win in political elections because they control the flow of money.   If that hasn’t been made clear in the most recent elections in this country, another ton of evidence will not convince.  And Obama is a classic example.  Where is the hope and meaningful change he promised?  Have the troops departed Iraq and Afghanistan?  Or, why can’t real and meaningful healthcare reform pass?  And look who is serving in positions of power in his Administration.  They are Clinton retreads and people from Goldman-Sachs.

Now with respect to the accusations that Obama is ushering in socialism, I laugh when Republicans come unglued about that.  They decry Obama’s socialism, but gave a wink and a nod when their party spent YOUR money like a drunken sailor.  They didn’t quibble when their party authorized an unpaid $1.3 trillion dollar program for Medicare Part D.  They didn’t say ‘boo’ when their party executed an $850 billion bailout for banks that they said were: “to big to fail.”  They didn’t even whimper when their party spent in excess of $2.0 trillion dollars to their Military Industrial Complex and no bid contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan for privately owned contractors.  Nor did their lap-dog news channel and talking heads on the FOX NETWORK protest as Republicans spent the $1.6 trillion dollar budget surplus they inherited in 2000.

I laugh when the vociferous in the party of NO say they oppose socialism and government spending, but gladly drink water from a county water system.  I laugh when the party of No say they oppose more government, but don’t object to driving their vehicles on the state and federal highway system.  I laugh when they say they oppose socialism, but don’t refuse the services offered by their local fire, police, and EMS departments.  And I’m waiting for those who oppose more government involvement in healthcare to refuse Medicare.  I’m waiting for them to ask their aging grandmother, (if on Medicaid for example), to refuse that socialistic program.  I’m waiting too for those who oppose (socialism) to refuse their monthly social security checks.   And maybe someone should ask them to stop buying meat at their local supermarket because it was inspected by some socialist, USDA certified, government food inspector.  On second thought, they should just GET A LIFE!

And finally, one more comment with respect to the debate about real and meaningful health care.  How can other civilized nations manage to provide basic healthcare to their people, but we can’t?  And consider this.  If we concluded the Iraq and Afghanistan war (by the way a war that was never officially declared by Congress which the U.S. Constitution demands), and if that money was used to improve the lives of our citizens, maybe all Americans could benefit.  But that won’t happen.  While I do expect some form of healthcare reform bill will pass the Congress, it will be laden with loopholes so that the average American will not be served from it.

As long as the “robber-class” rules America and we, the “robbed” allow elections to have no meaningful results, we get what we pay for.  As long as the Exxon-Mobil’s, Halliburton’s, and Blackwater/Xe, and Kellogg, Brown & Root, and the Military Industrial Complex control America’s political process, we ought not to expect positive change.  Frankly, as long as “We, the people…” endorse the existing election process, we should expect nothing short of home foreclosures, job losses, more bank bailouts, and stimulus programs to AIG, Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Street Banksters.