The Blood of Patriots

So it took almost a month but Missouri finally announced a winner for president!

Back in 2000 there was a similar scenario, Florida had an extremely close race and the whole country stood still and watched. Like Florida, Missouri had a tight contest this election with less than 5000 votes separating the 2 highest candidates. But did the country stop and wait for the final outcome? Were the news hounds camped out outside the Secretary of States office? No! There was no talk about the 36,000 votes cast for 3rd party candidates and how they stole the election or took votes away from a “real party” candidate. No! A winner was chosen before it’s votes were all counted. Wait a second, a winner was announced before all the votes were counted. Does that not smells of disenfranchisement? So what, Missouri doesn’t count! All 2,925,205 voters could have stayed home. What kind of political system have we setup for ourselves that allow your neighbors voice not to be heard. “But, my candidate won and that’s all that matters!” Is what I hear from the same people that were calling for all votes to be counted back in 2000. A faulty system is great as long as it benefits “me”! That mentality makes me sick.

There is a glimmer of hope, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida has introduced a bill that would abolish the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote. Unfortunately it hasn’t gotten much attention, but, maybe change is on the way…

Resources
Senate Bill
Electoral College
The Rest of Us

I find it tough to do the latter. The system that we have setup for ourselves to elect our leaders has no place for my voice. I’m given two options - one where I have to compromise my morals and the other where I must water down my opinions. It’s like all issues are black and white and there’s no room for gray. I’m being pushed and pulled by some kind of magnet. All the talk is only about candidate A and candidate B, like they have all the answers and they’re the only ones with the answers. You have more choices than you think and what you’re told! This makes me think of a quote from Thomas Paine who said, “I do not believe that any two people think alike who think at all. It is only those who have not thought that appear to agree.”

Agree is the key word here. I’ve spoken with a number of people and asked specific issue question that they are opposed or against and which their candidate of choice does not share the same opinion. Yet they intend to cast their vote believing the pros out weigh the cons. So as I see it, our electoral system is setup to appear we all agree when in fact we don’t. And on the other hand if you don’t agree you’re suppose to hate, boo or condemn the other and we’re not to discuss our differences. But if we did actually talk about them we’d most likely find we’re more similar and agree on more than the two options presented to us. So, just because we agree with candidate A or B - doesn’t really mean we do.

So to go back to the question - Do I vote for the winner or do I vote my ideology? Well, I’m voting for the candidate that will address the more appropriate question - Are all opinions expressed,  represented and discussed?

Vote!

One step forward, two steps back…

“As the party of ideas, rather than a mere coalition of interest, we consider vigorous debate a strength, not a weakness.” - 2008, Republican Platform

Unfortunately I couldn’t find a quote that mentioned ‘debate’ from the Democrats Platform.

So let’s see, there are 11 National Political Parties that have candidates running for the presidency. And yet only 2 of them get to debate. If you’re on the ballot, why can’t you be in the ‘live’ televised debate? Is there something wrong with our so called Democracy? At first glance I thought this was some kind of corporate ‘liberal’ media conspiracy controlling the debates. You know the one world order conspiracy to control the world… Maybe it is, but the media is just a piece of the puzzle.

Let’s start with the Federal Election Commission and the rules for presidential debates. First off it states that the ‘debates include at least two candidates and the staging organization does not structure the debates to promote or advance one candidate over another.’ Here is a bit of word play in the rules. ‘At least two candidates’ is interpreted as only 2 need to be present and of course the structure will not favor one or the other candidate present. The only ones this structure does not favor are the candidates that are not present!

Read on »

“Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. They — and let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions, ladies and gentlemen, of equality. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which — which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people. And, so help us God, that is exactly what a Republican President will do with the help of a Republican Congress.

It is further the cause of Republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don’t rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression — and this is hogwash.

Read on »

“The ordeal of the twentieth century, the bloodiest, most turbulent era of the whole Christian age, is far from over. Sacrifice, patience, understanding, and implacable purpose may be our lot for years to come. Let’s face it. Let’s talk sense to the American people. Let’s tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that there — that we are now on the eve of great decisions, not easy decisions, like resistance when you’re attacked, but a long, patient, costly struggle which alone can assure triumph over the great enemies of man — war, poverty, and tyranny — and the assaults upon human dignity which are the most grievous consequences of each.

Let’s tell them that the victory to be won in the twentieth century, this portal to the Golden Age, mocks the pretensions of individual acumen and ingenuity, for it is a citadel guarded by thick walls of ignorance and of mistrust which do not fall before the trumpets’ blast or the politicians’ imprecations or even a general’s baton. They are — They are, my friends, walls that must be directly stormed by the hosts of courage, of morality, and of vision, standing shoulder to shoulder, unafraid of ugly truth, contemptuous of lies, half truths, circuses, and demagoguery.

Read on »

“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

Dwight Eisenhower - 1945

63 years ago this week “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My apologies - may we never let this happen again!

“I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.”

Abraham Lincoln - June 26, 1857

There are 2 types of people in this world — there are the ones who think there are 2 types of people and then there is the rest of us!

Why do we allow laws to be passed to make immoral acts legal?

One of the new Bills going through the Congress these days is the ‘Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008′S.2913 & H.R.5889 (See links below for more information) After reading both Bills my head is spinning. You have to know ‘Double Speak’ to understand the laws these days.

Senator Leahy describes it as such, “Our legislation permits the use of an orphan work only if the potential user performs and documents a good faith search for the copyright owner. If users cannot locate and contact copyright owners, they may use the orphan work.”

This sounds like a fine idea for those who want to restore an old photo for personal use and cannot fine the original photographer or for a library to display letters of WWII solider who cannot be found. (Examples given by the writers of this legislation) I’m all on board when it comes to personal use and it’s displayed in public as art and/or education.

Representative Lamar Smith adds, “Millions of copyrighted works are effectively ‘locked up’ and unable to be enjoyed by the public due to our current copyright system. As a result, investments in new works and expositions by libraries, museums and others are frequently not undertaken due to the possibility of lawsuits and large statutory damage awards…” But wait, isn’t this the whole idea of copyright protection. I create something and you want to use it to create income you have to compensate me. Basic business principles and quite fair. However, the keyword in his statement is ‘OTHERS’ and this is where I throw up the red flag!

Read on »