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

Modern American Politics: Is It Extreme?

By: Jack Dawsey

Does it seem or appear to you that today’s American politics have gotten 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 beloved party of whom I had been member 42-years and published an article.   In the article, I established –to my satisfaction- the issue that my Republican Party (both national and state) had been hijacked by extremists and radicals much like the Democratic Party was 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 either the Republican or Democrat 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, but for this editorial consider this:

For example, there are some very radical Republicans that claim their party is the best party because it believes in a smaller government and fewer taxes. According to them, their party is not only more frugal, but it is against government deficit spending.  In this writer’s opinion, their actions belie their words.  They seem to have this habitual habit to increase budget deficits by providing tax cuts to the richest corporations, while growing the Military Industrial Complex and expanding the scope 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 increased the deficit by starting new programs like Medicare Part D, and engaging a war without paying for it.

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

Now on the other hand, the Democratic Party is a case too for sore-eyes.   Democrats are the author of the corrupt put and take system of our government.  “You put the money in it, and they take it out.”   

Their form of corruption is much like the ole country boy and the slick political banker.  Have you heard that story? 

If a country boy stiffs a political banker of $250,000, the country boy gets 15-years in state prison. But when the political banker steals $250,000 from the country boy, the bank merges with a larger bank and the governor promotes the politician to head up the state banking commission.  

Given the current mess that we are in, isn’t it about time to ask some pointed questions to both political parties? 

For example, since Republicans claim to believe in a smaller or non-intrusive government, ask them if they will agree to privately fund the nation’s interstate highway system, or the nation’s bridges, tunnels, railroads, and our public school system?

And since they rant and rave against socialism, (even draw you into a “fist-a-cuff” over the use of the word, socialism), shouldn’t they return their Social Security and unemployment compensation checks to the government?  Moreover, if they have an aging mother or grandmother, receiving Medicaid or Medicare, or Hospice, shouldn’t they demand for their beloved to be disconnected from that “socialist” government program too?

And by the way, since Republicans claim they hold a monopoly on the virtues of capitalism and the free market economy, shouldn’t they be more responsible in Congress and demand an end to the nation’s trade imbalance from the slave economies of the world, like China?

But no!  Republicans want their cake (and yours too) to do as they please with it, while condemning the baker that cooked it.

And finally, my advice to the “put and take” democrats is: “write the state institution from where you received your political science degree and demand a CASH REBATE on your education.  You 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.