lasooner123
11/6/2012, 02:24 AM
I see this election and recent elections as the American people asking themselves this simple question: Of these two candidates which one will do the least damage? Isn't it sad that this is what we have become accustomed to and accepting? We should not accept this. Thomas Jefferson claimed that the brilliance of our political structure is the capability of having a revolution every four years. This is what has allowed us to create the most inventive and successful democracy to date. We no longer have the ability for an easy revolution every four years. We have a 2 party duopoly that I would argue is, in fact, a monopoly. Yes, the Republican's and Democrats differ on a variety of minor issues (both socially and economically) but lets make no bones about it, they are one in the same. They are in bed together. They have a mutual political and economic stranglehold the American people. They are, in essence, putting this country under the tactics of siege warfare. They, in their very nature, are for bigger, more expansive, more controlling governments. They both are under the impression that the government can run your life better than you can; that industries and the American people are flawed but somehow being elected to office makes them infallible.
I plan on beginning this essay by explaining, in general, how there is no marked difference between democrats and republicans. I will then proceed to calling out both parties individually for not fulfilling their own respective platforms: for not being good at what they are supposed to be good at. I will then propose a legitimate, tangible solution to the problem that you yourself can play in role in solving.
First of all, it is important to notice the fact that corporate fat cats looking out for their own best interests control both of these parties. We have lobbyists in Washington who have no job other than to bribe public officials into creating loopholes that favor their respective companies. These corporations buy politicians from both major parties and fund their efforts to control and dictate the U.S. economic scene. Both parties put a stranglehold upon U.S. citizens and do everything within their power to prop up the mega-corporations that fund their (the politicians) extravagant and undeservedly luxurious lifestyles. Politicians are supposed to be public servants but they are anything but that. They should be described as liars, criminals, or career men. They implement regulations that make it nearly impossible for startup and small businesses to succeed. Extreme tax rates inhibit these same small businesses ability to compete with the corporate giants. Then when the economy takes a turn for the worse what happens? Does the government help all of the small businesses? No, they prop up the corporate dinosaurs that were part of the problem in the first place. I would argue that mega-corporations in the United States appreciate many of the regulations put upon them because it strangles out any potential competition.
Both parties are guilty of being pawns at the dispense of corporate CEO's. At the end of the day, who is benefited by high tax rates and so called “redistribution of wealth?” Is it the poor people? Very simply, no it is not. They are inhibited by these anti-incentives to the free market. They are granted a miniscule amount of money that does not provide for any kind of legitimate lifestyle and they are further stymied by the fact that these entitlements give them no valuable life or job skills. The true beneficiaries are in fact the large corporations. They are, in a sense, buying a self-insurance policy. In the inevitable event of an economic downturn, who is bailed out? Is it the small businesses; the ones hurt most by high tax rates? Or, is it the huge corporations that are in cahoots with the politicians from day one? It is the huge corporations that receive the bailouts government money.
The unskilled and unemployed are under further hindrance by the ever-increasing minimum wage. The minimum wage mandate undoubtedly has good intentions; but it is, in fact, a horrible idea. The government cannot determine what a persons value is on a large scale. The people that end up being punished are the unemployed who would otherwise be employed at low wages opposed to being completely unemployed. Unskilled jobs such as gas attendees, movie ushers, fruit pickers, caddies, dishwashers, and the list goes on are completely eliminated by the minimum wage mandate. Businesses are smart enough to realize that these services are not worth say 7 dollars an hour. Perhaps they would be worth 5 dollars an hour though and thus these unskilled laborers could add to the national economic pie and their own personal wellbeing. Certainly it would provide a safety net and bottom of the latter stepping-stone for these kinds of people.
Transitioning to the failures of each respective party it is important to understand they are both failing tremendously at fulfilling their own platforms. Traditionally the Democratic Party has been the party of civil liberties. There is very little debate that as of late they have been extremely poor on this front. During the Obama administration we have seen no tangible progression on any civil liberty. We have a president who supports the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the governments’ ability to use surveillance tactics on the American people. We have an administration that supports the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the United States government to arrest and detain U.S. citizens for an extended period of time without charging them with any crime. We fought wars over this kind of blatant and unconstitutional infringement upon our basic rights. I will address the drug war at a later point but would like to point out that under the Obama administration there have been no attempts to end the drug war. In fact, Obama has cracked down on medical marijuana dispensaries, continuing to raid them, prosecute offenders, and imprison them. Arguably the civil liberty that the party fights most forcefully for is a woman’s right to choose. I could argue that this is, in its very essence, hypocritical. A woman’s right to choose is in fact infringing upon the most basic “unalienable right,” the right to life. I do not mean to make this essay about abortion because I do understand it to be the most controversial and divisive issue in American politics. Little headway has been made on gay rights from the Democratic Party as of late. Fundamentally and religiously I disagree with every about homosexuality but I understand it to be a constitutionally guaranteed right. Because I demand the right to be able to publically and openly speak about my religion and my opinions and my second amendment right, it would be hypocritical for me to infringe upon your personal preferences, whatever they may be. It is not the governments’ job to enforce a biblical moral code upon the people; otherwise they would have to imprison every woman that has a child out of wedlock. There is nothing more indicative of this President’s prejudice and intolerance to beliefs contradictory to his own than his “clinging to their God and Guns” comments.
As poor as the Democratic Party has been on civil liberties, the Republic Party has been equally poor on its supposed forte, the economy. The “Dollars and Cents” party has failed the American people immeasurably. Republican Presidents for decades have insisted upon increasing military spending at incredible and unnecessary rates. This country spends more money on its militaristic endeavors than every other major country of the world combined. Let me ask you this question; to what end? Are we in some way ensuring peace in the Middle East? Is our incessant building of schools, roads, and bridges doing us any good when they proceed to being blown up? Is our having of 45 military bases across Iran causing them to bow down to us? Is our constant dropping of bombs and drone attacks making us any friends? The answer to all of these questions is no. There is nothing that makes me angrier than seeing our politicians beat their chests in pride at their “militaristic accomplishments.” These accomplishments are not theirs; they belong solely to young men and women who give so much for the cause of freedom and liberty. Tragically we end up sending soldiers home in caskets or with limbs blown off. At the same time we cannot protect our own borders. We need to bring our troops home now. Protect our own borders not the Afghan border and quit having a presence in over 130 countries worldwide. We have Mitt Romney on stage debating the President over ways in which he is going to increase or maintain all federal programs. I don’t want to get into all of the failures of the Bush administration but he is about as far as you can be from a fiscal conservative. He was quick to sign off on his support for a multitude of spending bills, government bureaus, and regulatory agencies. Mitt Romney has shown little to no commitment to cutting the out-of-control government spending. In fact, he is arguably more in favor of crony-capitalism and government spending than President Bush. During Romney’s first year in office the deficit could increase by as much as $1 trillion dollars. He is proposing a “balanced budget” after the year 2028 contingent upon growth. Our country cannot afford much more of this. On the fiscal front, President Obama will be even worse than than a presumed President Romney.
The brilliance of this dual faceted monopoly is that the American people have become accepting of the notion that there is no alternative. Why is there no alternative, you ask? After Ross Perrot's incredibly successful 1992 campaign as a third party candidate, the republicans and democrats saw their monopoly threatened. They knew a solution must be agreed upon or the entire political landscape in the United States would change forever. Their very lifestyle would be threatened and in fact dissolved. Using their control of the commission of presidential debates (CPD) and all polling organizations, they made it extremely difficult and in fact nearly impossible for third party candidates to be allowed in debates. In order for a candidate to participate in the debate they must be polling at 15 percent. Fair enough, unless you consider that third party candidates are rarely included in the polls, much less given recognition from the party-dominated national media. These aren't even the biggest hindrances upon a third party candidate. Few people realize that both the Republican and Democratic parties receive federal grants well upward of $180 million to fund their campaigns. This money is in addition to the incredible corporate and individual donations from the American people. I propose that everyone who reads this post give their vote to Governor Gary Johnson(whose platform I am about to give),especially if you live in a state whose electoral votes are already essentially determined. If Gary Johnson receives upward of 5% of the national vote he will receive funding proportionate to how far he eclipses that threshold. This may seem like a long shot but he is polling at between 4 and 6.5 % of the vote in the inclusive polls. It remains to be seen whether his constituents will bail in the ballot box.
Gary Johnson is the only alternative. He is the only candidate that will end the wars. He will bring the troops home tomorrow. He would never have gone into Iraq. He will not bomb Iran, thus creating hundreds of millions of enemies this country would not otherwise have. He is the only candidate that does not support the use of drones: drones that kill hundreds of innocent civilians upon every use, drones, which use two percent of their power on the target and ninety-eight percent on the surroundings. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that will end the war on drugs. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that would not have signed the National Defense Authorization Act. He is the only candidate that does not support the PATRIOT ACT. Gary Johnson has vowed to propose a balanced budget in the year 2013. Gary Johnson supports a fair tax. He believes in no federal income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax. He would abolish the IRS. He would replace all of it with one capped-federal consumption tax (23%). This tax would provide a $200/month pre-bate to support up to the poverty level. Every American would receive this monthly check. This tax would be cost neutral over a very short period of time. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that will put gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence. He is the only candidate that will put cutting military spending and medicare reform in the same sentence. He is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home and protect our border opposed to the afghan border. He is the only candidate that champions liberty, freedom, and the constitution.
I want to address the drug war very briefly. Half of the spending in our justice system (police, courts, prisons) goes to catching non-violent drug offenders. This is an incredible misuse of taxpayer money. Inversely proportionate to the increase in resources allocated to catching non-violent drug offenders there has been a decrease in our ability to catch violent criminals(rapists, murders, thieves ie. real criminals). What are we gaining from our ineffective war on drugs? Nothing. We catch marijuana users who pose zero threat to society and inhibit their ability to get an education or a job thereafter. Barack Obama would never have had the opportunity to be president if he had been arrested on marijuana charges. Neither would George Bush or Bill Clinton who have admitted to being previous users. It is also easier for children and teens to get their hands on unregulated, underground drugs than it is for them to get their hands on even alcohol. As a teen that doesn’t drink or smoke, I can confidently say that if given 50 dollars I could get marijuana easier than I could alcohol. Teens in most demographics would agree with the statement I have just made. There is also the prohibition phenomenon that is border violence. 75 percent of border violence is drug related. This is in direct relation to our prohibition laws. If marijuana and other drugs were legalized this violence would disappear overnight as the growth and distribution and would be regulated. Thankfully, I believe we are at a tipping point on this issue and marijuana will soon be legalized and regulated as is alcohol.
The debates that we have been watching aren’t much more than tweedle-dee vs. tweedle-dum. Coke vs. Pepsi. There are some small differences between the two but they are nearly indistinguishable. Both are big-government, war mongering, propaganda spreading, crony-capitalists with zero accountablitlity that are running campaign based on empty rhetoric and wish-washy stances. Both support the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT, the National Defense Authorization Act, insurance mandates, and excessive regulation. I do feel that there are very few Presidents that would be worse than the current President but are we to convince ourselves that we will in someway be better off with Romney? Are we to convince ourselves that he will prevent us from running off of the fiscal cliff? Are we to convince ourselves that somehow his tax cuts are going to offset increases in military spending? Consider that regardless (Romney or Obama or Robomney) there will not be significant progress during the next four years. We must come to terms with the fact that this is a flawed system and barring some kind of real change, such as a balanced budget tomorrow, we are in big trouble. In 2016 it is likely we will turn our hope to whichever party does not win this election. Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican and the cycle will continue as it has since Reagan left office. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insanity.
I encourage you to entertain this notion. I encourage you entertain the idea that no vote for liberty is a waste. No vote for freedom is a waste. No vote for the constitution is a waste. I say it is a waste to vote for someone you don't trust. I say it is a waste to vote for someone you don't believe in. I say it is a waste to vote for the lesser of two evils. I say it is a waste to vote to have your freedoms continually eroded. I say a vote against your conscience is a waste.
As Ben Franklin famously said, ‘Join or Die.’ A continuation of these failed policies will kill our once great nation. Whether a donkey or an elephant, I see only the ***. If you decide you don't like freedom, you don't like peace, you don't like prosperity, then go-ahead vote tyranny back into office. Be libertarian with me for one election. Vote.
I plan on beginning this essay by explaining, in general, how there is no marked difference between democrats and republicans. I will then proceed to calling out both parties individually for not fulfilling their own respective platforms: for not being good at what they are supposed to be good at. I will then propose a legitimate, tangible solution to the problem that you yourself can play in role in solving.
First of all, it is important to notice the fact that corporate fat cats looking out for their own best interests control both of these parties. We have lobbyists in Washington who have no job other than to bribe public officials into creating loopholes that favor their respective companies. These corporations buy politicians from both major parties and fund their efforts to control and dictate the U.S. economic scene. Both parties put a stranglehold upon U.S. citizens and do everything within their power to prop up the mega-corporations that fund their (the politicians) extravagant and undeservedly luxurious lifestyles. Politicians are supposed to be public servants but they are anything but that. They should be described as liars, criminals, or career men. They implement regulations that make it nearly impossible for startup and small businesses to succeed. Extreme tax rates inhibit these same small businesses ability to compete with the corporate giants. Then when the economy takes a turn for the worse what happens? Does the government help all of the small businesses? No, they prop up the corporate dinosaurs that were part of the problem in the first place. I would argue that mega-corporations in the United States appreciate many of the regulations put upon them because it strangles out any potential competition.
Both parties are guilty of being pawns at the dispense of corporate CEO's. At the end of the day, who is benefited by high tax rates and so called “redistribution of wealth?” Is it the poor people? Very simply, no it is not. They are inhibited by these anti-incentives to the free market. They are granted a miniscule amount of money that does not provide for any kind of legitimate lifestyle and they are further stymied by the fact that these entitlements give them no valuable life or job skills. The true beneficiaries are in fact the large corporations. They are, in a sense, buying a self-insurance policy. In the inevitable event of an economic downturn, who is bailed out? Is it the small businesses; the ones hurt most by high tax rates? Or, is it the huge corporations that are in cahoots with the politicians from day one? It is the huge corporations that receive the bailouts government money.
The unskilled and unemployed are under further hindrance by the ever-increasing minimum wage. The minimum wage mandate undoubtedly has good intentions; but it is, in fact, a horrible idea. The government cannot determine what a persons value is on a large scale. The people that end up being punished are the unemployed who would otherwise be employed at low wages opposed to being completely unemployed. Unskilled jobs such as gas attendees, movie ushers, fruit pickers, caddies, dishwashers, and the list goes on are completely eliminated by the minimum wage mandate. Businesses are smart enough to realize that these services are not worth say 7 dollars an hour. Perhaps they would be worth 5 dollars an hour though and thus these unskilled laborers could add to the national economic pie and their own personal wellbeing. Certainly it would provide a safety net and bottom of the latter stepping-stone for these kinds of people.
Transitioning to the failures of each respective party it is important to understand they are both failing tremendously at fulfilling their own platforms. Traditionally the Democratic Party has been the party of civil liberties. There is very little debate that as of late they have been extremely poor on this front. During the Obama administration we have seen no tangible progression on any civil liberty. We have a president who supports the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the governments’ ability to use surveillance tactics on the American people. We have an administration that supports the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the United States government to arrest and detain U.S. citizens for an extended period of time without charging them with any crime. We fought wars over this kind of blatant and unconstitutional infringement upon our basic rights. I will address the drug war at a later point but would like to point out that under the Obama administration there have been no attempts to end the drug war. In fact, Obama has cracked down on medical marijuana dispensaries, continuing to raid them, prosecute offenders, and imprison them. Arguably the civil liberty that the party fights most forcefully for is a woman’s right to choose. I could argue that this is, in its very essence, hypocritical. A woman’s right to choose is in fact infringing upon the most basic “unalienable right,” the right to life. I do not mean to make this essay about abortion because I do understand it to be the most controversial and divisive issue in American politics. Little headway has been made on gay rights from the Democratic Party as of late. Fundamentally and religiously I disagree with every about homosexuality but I understand it to be a constitutionally guaranteed right. Because I demand the right to be able to publically and openly speak about my religion and my opinions and my second amendment right, it would be hypocritical for me to infringe upon your personal preferences, whatever they may be. It is not the governments’ job to enforce a biblical moral code upon the people; otherwise they would have to imprison every woman that has a child out of wedlock. There is nothing more indicative of this President’s prejudice and intolerance to beliefs contradictory to his own than his “clinging to their God and Guns” comments.
As poor as the Democratic Party has been on civil liberties, the Republic Party has been equally poor on its supposed forte, the economy. The “Dollars and Cents” party has failed the American people immeasurably. Republican Presidents for decades have insisted upon increasing military spending at incredible and unnecessary rates. This country spends more money on its militaristic endeavors than every other major country of the world combined. Let me ask you this question; to what end? Are we in some way ensuring peace in the Middle East? Is our incessant building of schools, roads, and bridges doing us any good when they proceed to being blown up? Is our having of 45 military bases across Iran causing them to bow down to us? Is our constant dropping of bombs and drone attacks making us any friends? The answer to all of these questions is no. There is nothing that makes me angrier than seeing our politicians beat their chests in pride at their “militaristic accomplishments.” These accomplishments are not theirs; they belong solely to young men and women who give so much for the cause of freedom and liberty. Tragically we end up sending soldiers home in caskets or with limbs blown off. At the same time we cannot protect our own borders. We need to bring our troops home now. Protect our own borders not the Afghan border and quit having a presence in over 130 countries worldwide. We have Mitt Romney on stage debating the President over ways in which he is going to increase or maintain all federal programs. I don’t want to get into all of the failures of the Bush administration but he is about as far as you can be from a fiscal conservative. He was quick to sign off on his support for a multitude of spending bills, government bureaus, and regulatory agencies. Mitt Romney has shown little to no commitment to cutting the out-of-control government spending. In fact, he is arguably more in favor of crony-capitalism and government spending than President Bush. During Romney’s first year in office the deficit could increase by as much as $1 trillion dollars. He is proposing a “balanced budget” after the year 2028 contingent upon growth. Our country cannot afford much more of this. On the fiscal front, President Obama will be even worse than than a presumed President Romney.
The brilliance of this dual faceted monopoly is that the American people have become accepting of the notion that there is no alternative. Why is there no alternative, you ask? After Ross Perrot's incredibly successful 1992 campaign as a third party candidate, the republicans and democrats saw their monopoly threatened. They knew a solution must be agreed upon or the entire political landscape in the United States would change forever. Their very lifestyle would be threatened and in fact dissolved. Using their control of the commission of presidential debates (CPD) and all polling organizations, they made it extremely difficult and in fact nearly impossible for third party candidates to be allowed in debates. In order for a candidate to participate in the debate they must be polling at 15 percent. Fair enough, unless you consider that third party candidates are rarely included in the polls, much less given recognition from the party-dominated national media. These aren't even the biggest hindrances upon a third party candidate. Few people realize that both the Republican and Democratic parties receive federal grants well upward of $180 million to fund their campaigns. This money is in addition to the incredible corporate and individual donations from the American people. I propose that everyone who reads this post give their vote to Governor Gary Johnson(whose platform I am about to give),especially if you live in a state whose electoral votes are already essentially determined. If Gary Johnson receives upward of 5% of the national vote he will receive funding proportionate to how far he eclipses that threshold. This may seem like a long shot but he is polling at between 4 and 6.5 % of the vote in the inclusive polls. It remains to be seen whether his constituents will bail in the ballot box.
Gary Johnson is the only alternative. He is the only candidate that will end the wars. He will bring the troops home tomorrow. He would never have gone into Iraq. He will not bomb Iran, thus creating hundreds of millions of enemies this country would not otherwise have. He is the only candidate that does not support the use of drones: drones that kill hundreds of innocent civilians upon every use, drones, which use two percent of their power on the target and ninety-eight percent on the surroundings. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that will end the war on drugs. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that would not have signed the National Defense Authorization Act. He is the only candidate that does not support the PATRIOT ACT. Gary Johnson has vowed to propose a balanced budget in the year 2013. Gary Johnson supports a fair tax. He believes in no federal income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax. He would abolish the IRS. He would replace all of it with one capped-federal consumption tax (23%). This tax would provide a $200/month pre-bate to support up to the poverty level. Every American would receive this monthly check. This tax would be cost neutral over a very short period of time. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that will put gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence. He is the only candidate that will put cutting military spending and medicare reform in the same sentence. He is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home and protect our border opposed to the afghan border. He is the only candidate that champions liberty, freedom, and the constitution.
I want to address the drug war very briefly. Half of the spending in our justice system (police, courts, prisons) goes to catching non-violent drug offenders. This is an incredible misuse of taxpayer money. Inversely proportionate to the increase in resources allocated to catching non-violent drug offenders there has been a decrease in our ability to catch violent criminals(rapists, murders, thieves ie. real criminals). What are we gaining from our ineffective war on drugs? Nothing. We catch marijuana users who pose zero threat to society and inhibit their ability to get an education or a job thereafter. Barack Obama would never have had the opportunity to be president if he had been arrested on marijuana charges. Neither would George Bush or Bill Clinton who have admitted to being previous users. It is also easier for children and teens to get their hands on unregulated, underground drugs than it is for them to get their hands on even alcohol. As a teen that doesn’t drink or smoke, I can confidently say that if given 50 dollars I could get marijuana easier than I could alcohol. Teens in most demographics would agree with the statement I have just made. There is also the prohibition phenomenon that is border violence. 75 percent of border violence is drug related. This is in direct relation to our prohibition laws. If marijuana and other drugs were legalized this violence would disappear overnight as the growth and distribution and would be regulated. Thankfully, I believe we are at a tipping point on this issue and marijuana will soon be legalized and regulated as is alcohol.
The debates that we have been watching aren’t much more than tweedle-dee vs. tweedle-dum. Coke vs. Pepsi. There are some small differences between the two but they are nearly indistinguishable. Both are big-government, war mongering, propaganda spreading, crony-capitalists with zero accountablitlity that are running campaign based on empty rhetoric and wish-washy stances. Both support the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT, the National Defense Authorization Act, insurance mandates, and excessive regulation. I do feel that there are very few Presidents that would be worse than the current President but are we to convince ourselves that we will in someway be better off with Romney? Are we to convince ourselves that he will prevent us from running off of the fiscal cliff? Are we to convince ourselves that somehow his tax cuts are going to offset increases in military spending? Consider that regardless (Romney or Obama or Robomney) there will not be significant progress during the next four years. We must come to terms with the fact that this is a flawed system and barring some kind of real change, such as a balanced budget tomorrow, we are in big trouble. In 2016 it is likely we will turn our hope to whichever party does not win this election. Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican and the cycle will continue as it has since Reagan left office. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insanity.
I encourage you to entertain this notion. I encourage you entertain the idea that no vote for liberty is a waste. No vote for freedom is a waste. No vote for the constitution is a waste. I say it is a waste to vote for someone you don't trust. I say it is a waste to vote for someone you don't believe in. I say it is a waste to vote for the lesser of two evils. I say it is a waste to vote to have your freedoms continually eroded. I say a vote against your conscience is a waste.
As Ben Franklin famously said, ‘Join or Die.’ A continuation of these failed policies will kill our once great nation. Whether a donkey or an elephant, I see only the ***. If you decide you don't like freedom, you don't like peace, you don't like prosperity, then go-ahead vote tyranny back into office. Be libertarian with me for one election. Vote.