The Politics of Fear

Let me try another tact on this subject.  I play cards often with a gentleman who is a postal carrier and a terrific card player.  He uses the phrase, "I am going to take flyer" when he makes a bid that he is uncertain he can make.  So I am going to take a "flyer" on this topic.

I like reasoned arguments.  I don't like to see things become emotional personal attacks.  I like to cite references and sources but this darn system won't let me do it on replies, so I am sorry in advance for not posting cites.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was a democrat earlier in my life and a Republican beginning about 1994.  I consider myself an independent now though I did attend my last republican caucus.  Trust me, they do not count me as one of their lock step loyalists.  I am as critical of them as I am of the democrats.

I do not think the ideoligcal war is Republican v Democrat, nor Conservative vs Liberal not Rich vs poor and middle class....  I think the real war is average voter vs corrupt politician.

It is my assertion that the 2 major political parties use issues to divide WE THE PEOPLE and divert our attention from their trespasses.

The Founding Father's despised political parties.  On of the worst insults they could give another was to refer to them as a "party man"  They so dispised political parties because they forced the individual to place the priority of  "party" over the priority of "country" I think placing party over country is now the rule.  When you join either of the two political parties, you are required to take an oath of absolute loyalty to that party.  I think that both parties offer positions and candidates that prevent members from acting with absolute loyalty without compromising their principals.

Let me go on futher to assert that regardless of which of the 2 major political parties are in power in the congress and the presidency, the majorty of the American Citizenry is still not represented.

Let now say that American Government has evolved from being a repesentative republic to "Government by the Highest Bidder".

When the Political Leaders are forced to defend positions because they have accepted either a bribe or political contribution, they can not defend, argue and make logical arguements from the heart.  And because they are taking consideration(bribes/campaign contributions) to cast votes on issues that the the majority of voters likely won't agree with, when it comes election time, they cannot run on their voting records. Instead they must resort on attacks on their opponents rather than standing on their records. Let me rephrase that, Politicians try to make themselves appear a better choice than their opponent by demonizing and discrediting their opponent rather than stating the qualities that make them better than their opponent. This strategy avoids having to discuss Politicians have made in exchange for bribes and campaign contributions, but counter to desires of the voting majority. This has led to the oft quoted phrase, "I voted for the lesser of two evils.

The point of the previous paragraph is that both Republicans and Democrats resort to strategies not based on arguing their voting records, because they often take bribes and campaign contributions that induce them to vote against the will of the voting majority.  That leaves demonizing, discrediting and fear mongering as the only alternatives.

Along those lines I would offer the concept of Absolute vs Conditional/Situational morality. If affairs are wrong, they are equally wrong whether the actor is of our own political party or not.  The same amount of evidence required for each of us to consider someone guilty of a crime or breach of the public trust should not be dependent on whether that person is a member of our own political party or not.  Further, we should hold the candidates for our own political party to a moral standard higher than the minimum standard of "the law"

All that having been said, I think I have thoroughly established that my criticisms of President Obama are not based in blind poltical loyalty, nor political diatribe or dogma.  My criticism of President Obama are based in fact.

Both Presidential Candidates promised to clean up the corruption and stand up to the special interests in Washington.

President Obama specifically said, 1) No Lobbyist in the White House; 2)  No Earmarks in the Budget.  But we have lobbyist in the White House and Earmarks in the Budget. Those would be broken campaign promises.  That would be one source of my continued criticism of President Obama.

Next, we have a tax cheat heading the treasury.  And Obama nominated several other persons who cheated on their taxes for cabinet level positions.  Now all these persons are vetted before they are publicly nominated. He had to know about their tax cheating ways before he nominated them, but he still nominated them.  Only public pressure prevented them from being installed.

Next we have Obamas failure to get an exact accounting of where the 700B Bank bailout money went.  I would speculate that it is because a lot of congressmen that voted for it got kickbacks for voting for it and the politicians do not the public to know that is what happened.  Can you say, "conflict of interest" and "not in the best interest of the voting majority"?

Next their is the issue of Democrat California Representative Harman caught on wiretap tape offering to help persons being prosecuted for spying on the USA to get reduced charges in exchange for the chairmanship of the House intelligence Committer.  And then their is Republican AG Gonzalez shutting down the Justice Department investigation into that Justice Department investigation because he wanted her help defending Republican President George Bush in upcoming warrantless wiretap hearings.  I criticize President Obama for not spearheading the impeachment of both Harman and Gonzalez.  Do you want to tell me that is "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror"?  The security of the country traded for political party gain? Who is watching out for the interests of the country?

And finally their is the spending of an estimated 10 trillion dollars that we do not have.  I sense from the author's political vent that it is pointless for me to define the relationship between printing fiat money that we don't have and hyperinflation.  I will only refer her to video on the Collapse of Argentina in 2001 posted on youtube.com for an explanation. (or try Zeitgeistmovie.com)  I am concerned that we are runing our country. Russia and China are suggesting no longer using the US Dollar as the standard in international exchanges as a result of our wreckless spending and printing of fiat money to pay for the wreckless spending.  I often say to other citizens, "I don't know how anyone over 30 can look anyone under 25 in the eye." Does that sound like, "nameless, unfounded, unjustified terror"?

In the tradition of our Founding Fathers, I hereby label you a "Party Person" Unfortunately, i think you will wear it as a compliment rather than a criticism. 

Now, whereas Queens heart asked you to retract and restate your opinion, I would simply ask you to address my reply and indicate if anything I have said has caused you to rethink any of your original opinion.

I love this country.  My criticisms are based on fact and deed.  They are in no way based on party loyalty. They are based on my love and loyalty for this country that transcend any political party loyalty.  I challenge you to put country ahead of party.

Respectfully submitted,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot