Saturday, November 7, 2009

The Death of America: aka Response to Marky Boy

While reading a recent post by Markadelphia at his blog 'Notes From The Front', I felt I needed to respond. Unfortunately, as I began to type my response, it quickly became obvious it should be it's own post rather than a comment. The article was titled "Reaching Out", and here is my response:

Marky Boy... the answer is you don't. There is no need. Your side has already won. Well, actually... we all have lost. I read a recent post elsewhere that discusses how the United Kingdoms reached the political state it has, as well as what is currently happening hear in the US. You see, all this hurling of who is right and wrong is quite meaningless. Many years ago, shortly after this country was first formed, there was an infiltration that began to take place. That infiltration has continued to this day on two fronts.

First, there was an infiltration into the government by those that wanted the power. But one person could not do it alone, as the constitution stood in their way. So over the years more and more individuals were recruited with a similar mind of the government taking the power from the people. Once there were enough of these individuals, they began to modify our constitution to take power away from the people and put it into their own hands... often under the guise of "helping" the people. This was easy since, as the country grew, so did the complexities of the problems that had to be addressed. All that had to be done was for those in government to step forward and tell the people, "We can fix this, we just need you to give us the power to fix it." Unfortunately the people did. Over and over and over again. And all for the promise of getting a better America if they did.

Second, once the power had been taken from the people by the government, then those with the power began to squabble over how best to rule. While those in power began to debate amongst themselves as how to guide the country as they saw fit, all those in power still managed to agree on one commonality... that they needed to keep the power to themselves.

If you don't believe these statements all it should take to convince you is to watch the ridiculous behaviors that come from both sides of those that run our country. These people that run our government get into arguments over whether there should be a Michael Jackson day or not... in the middle of trying to resolve how best to create a Health Care Bill very few of the actual citizens supported or wanted. These people no longer care about you, the citizen... they only care about doing things that make you think they care and keep them in power or meet the utopia of their own design. In they end... as long as they are in government they can do what they want when ever they want. One more clue as to the division between them and the common folk... they made sure that when they took the power they put in clauses that made them excluded from the effects of the laws they passed. I am willing to bet that if our federal government would be saddled with the same coverage the current Health Care Bill provides, the amount of individuals willing to vote it into being would drop significantly. As for which side they are on... it is all a mask. They are on neither side. It is all the costume they wear to appeal to the public that will put them in power. If the state is red, they dawn the red cape and profess to be a conservative... and likewise for a blue state. They make promises they may or may not ever fulfill, so long as they gain that groups support to give them the power.

In all honesty, at this point I am not even sure the United States should be united. Our country as a whole is divided by so many issues it isn't even funny. Look at the past 20 years of elections... the majority of major elections have all been within a 10% difference between the two major parties. Almost every major issue is torn 50% - 50% between those for and those against. What does this mean? It means that at any given election half the people loose the representation they had wanted. It means that 50% of the country is now being ruled by the other half, which leave half the country unhappy with those that won. In the end, as said before... no one wins, as most the promises made to the winning half will never be fulfilled anyway.

Perhaps we were never meant to get to where we now find ourselves. Perhaps the civil war ended incorrectly. The original concept of the founding fathers was for federal government to handle matters that crossed state boundaries, and for state government to handle individual state matters. And likewise the state would handle multi-city issues while the city governments would handle the truly local issues at hand. The idea being that this would provide the most local representation of the people in any one area. So the people living in a town in Virginia wouldn't have to follow the same law as someone in New York, as the situations were substantially different between the two locations. The civil war was a reaction by those living in the South to the federal government of the North dictating what they had to do and interfering in their way of life based on Northern conditions. Even then, the power had already been taken out of the peoples hands so much that they had determined it was necessary to violently revolt as there was no longer any means to achieve revolt within the confines of the government.

As we all know, the South lost and we remained a United States. A broken and divided United States. Proven time and again by those in one area reacting out against laws that made no sense to them by those that didn't even know the first thing of their local situation. And all under the guise of 'making things better for us all'.

Frankly, I am tired of the federal government 'making things better' for me. Part of the genius of the original constitution was that it put matters into your own hands. The hands of the individual citizens. It gave you freedom. Freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. It was up to us to decide. The answer is that we have failed. We gave our freedom away to our federal government, and now we simply elect those that we feel will placate to our illusions of freedom the most and denounce those that we feel represent the opposite of what we desire.

Can we the citizens get the power back? Yes and no... it all depends on what lengths we are willing to go. Can we get the power back by the same means as which we lost it? Unlikely, as those that would seek the positions of power that could give it back to the people would most likely succumb to the very power they were there to release. This leaves only the violent forms of revolution. Only a mass of citizens demanding the rights stripped of them at gun point will get them back at the tip of their own guns. This uprising will require a force that can exceed and topple that of police forces and military... a very unlikely quest. In the end, there are just far too many citizens that much rather settle for the scraps of freedom the government gives than fight for the freedom the constitution originally provided them.

What does this mean for you and me Marky Boy? It means that our debates and differences fall on deaf ears and achieves nothing more than making us feel better that we said our piece. In doing so, we can either choose to provoke or discuss in proper debate, but we must acknowledge that in the end it is all meaningless and will achieve nothing. Why is it meaningless? Because we do not have the power. Even if we were able to convert every reader to our side of the argument, how many do you think we will be able to convince to lay down their lives in hopes of regaining something so few even realize they have lost? As stated, most would rather settle for scraps... as the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

But, should either of us be able to achieve in convert all others to our personal views... to the point they would go to war against their very government that rules them... only then would we achieve the ability to divide the country amongst those that wanted one thing and those that wanted something else. Then we would be truly free. Only then would we return to a society once promised by our constitution. Freedom to succeed or fail in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


  1. Generally speaking, I agree with what you are saying here. Where we part ways is the issue of where the power base lies. I think it lies within corporate America who then use their paid off stoolies in the government to do their bidding. I'm guessing that you think it's the other way around. If you were correct, why the need for so many lobbying groups? The "all powerful" government would just order them shut down. Instead, their influence permeates Washington.

    But how much government is too much? I think we both agree that the government should provide for the common defense, right? Many I know that think they way you do leave it at that. Should they regulate the financial markets? Should they regulate anything? I was filling up the tank in my car today and saw that the tanks I was using were inspected and regulated by the government. I would like them to continue to do this sort of thing, for safety reasons, wouldn't you?

    Our debates may indeed fall on deaf ears. They certainly have created a cottage industry, though, for political porn as I like to call it....where both sides wank to talking heads telling them what they want to hear.

  2. Mark... I would also agree with you to a degree, only I don't think that corporate America would have been able to get where they are had the federal government not seized the power from the people first, thus limiting their ability to stop the progression of corporatism to the extreem it has become. And ever since that time, it has been a symbiotic relationship beteen government and corporate America that now rules this country. Millions are spent on lobbiests as you said, but that is only to sway favor of the two ideals of how to govern by the federal govenment. It is all about maintaining the illusion for the masses. It is not about getting more power so much as hiding how they are screwing the citizens.

  3. Marky, the lobbying groups serve a need. Everyone uses them. Politicians who are unreceptive to their constituents tend to be more receptive to lobbying groups. The size of government and expansion of laws and regulations necessitated their creation. They are an effective way to get a message to politicians. They're not inherently evil. The political climate created them. Lobbying groups are not confined to "big business" at all.

  4. Sure, corporate America uses the government as a tool but the power originates from where the money is and that's the private sector.

    You are also correct in your use of the term symbiosis. The question is...what is to be done about it?

  5. Mark, in short.... start over. I think you and I would agree that the constitution was a pretty amazing document. And that, regardless as to who you would blame for its perversion... whether it be corporate America or the government entities themselves, it has been perverted from its original intent. I would also say that the original document left minute loop holes that, over time, obviously were exploited. I believe the only answer to achieve what either of us truly wants is to start over and address the loop holes.

  6. Well, there are several advantages to starting over but how realistic is it given how much our culture has changed? "Provide for the Common Defense," for example, doesn't mean what it used to mean. A well armed militia does a good job of fending off Visigoths but a biological attack?