Eisenhower’s Warning Remembered

19 Feb

(originally posted on January 20, 2011 at denagray.wordpress.com)

Eisenhower’s Warning Still Challenges a Nation

Above, I’ve linked to an article transcribed from an NPR episode of Talk of the Nation, in which is discussed President Eisenhower’s final presidential speech to the Nation in office and it’s warning: that our country had (at the time) perhaps built ourselves too strongly overseas as a military force and should seek to bring our interests closer to home before the “military-industrial complex” becomes too much for America to control.

Astounding words from fifty years ago, aren’t they?

Some of our Presidents have taken them to heart:  Reagan, Clinton, Obama is trying…but it also seems that we have such vested interest in each of these countries, so much more so and beyond that of just military interest, that the President cannot simply order our troops out of those countries.

For example, take our impact in South Korea.  Not only have we been permanently stationed there (and legitimately so) for over 50 years, but to leave there would do two things.  #1: Give Kim Jong-Il a tacit green light to do as he wishes with the 38th parallel and anyone living nearby, but #2: our economic impact on the area would be stunning.  Just like any home town in America is devastated when their troops are deployed, so would such a long-standing military involvement impact the economy of their populace.  It would, at this point, be irresponsible to “immediately” evacuate our troops.  There are more involved implications, but these are the simplest for my point.

This is just one of so many hundreds of involvements where our military investments have become economic and commercial investments as well.  In fact, there are very few foreign countries that we have military involvement where we don’t have some sort of vested interest in their economy.

We have so much invested outside of our own country and yet involved in our own interests that it has, by Eisenhower’s predictions and warnings, become the precursor to our downfall as the United States.  I would put out that such stretching of our interests and abilities, beyond our capabilities, is mostly at fault for the devaluation and inflation of the dollar (not to mention that several authorities think that if we run out, we should just print more.  Thank you for taking us off the Gold Standard.  I still don’t understand that one.)

Now, I am not saying that we should shun global economics.  It is clearly impossible to have a cohesive and functioning society at the speed of Mastercard that we’re used to without the involvement of global trade.  I do, however, wish that we would, as Americans, focus more on our own responsibility AS AMERICANS,  instead of foisting these responsibilities on the government to handle.  Shoving our responsibilities on them only forces our governing body to create more laws and more presence in our lives, costing more money (translating into our country’s debt).

Where am I going with this?  How does this involve the Tuscon Tragedy?  Ok.  I’ll get to the point now.

Our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Why?  In light of the Tuscon Tragedy, Arizona is scrambling to vet in copious gun control laws.  What will that do?  Honestly.  What criminal mind will obey the law?  Will an assassin stop and think “Oh! I can’t shoot them there, there’s a gun law!”  No.  As the facebook post is saying, guns kill people like spoons make people fat and pencils make people illiterate.  It’s our actions that bespeak our fate, not the objects that we use.

Yes, this object is highly dangerous.  Yes, if there were less of these objects on the streets, there would be less of a chance of someone LAW ABIDING shooting someone.  But that’s the point again.  Someone intent on breaking the law will not stop because there’s a law in place.  It’s only a sentence on a piece of paper to them.

Now, if this had happened in Texas, an open carry state, I don’t think we would have had a tragedy at all.  Too many people take the responsibility of personal safety upon themselves to allow someone acting strangely around a large gathering to roam freely.

This, I believe, is crucial to Eisenhower’s Warning.  I think it’s a way to fix the over-involvement of our military, using ambassadors and emissaries as should be (and they are used, I know, but they are used in conjunction much more so than they should be).

Think about it.  Remember the stories from Pearl Harbor as to WHY Japan chose that location to attack America instead of ANY WHERE ELSE.  They, or the USSR (at the time our enemies, now both our allies) could have easily slipped across the Aleutian Islands into Alaska and down through Canada.  They could have flooded up through Florida from Cuba or made treaty with Mexico and invaded from there.  Why didn’t they?

Think about it very carefully.  What was different in the 30’s and 40’s from today that’s relative to my discussion here?

Most everyone kept a firearm in their household.  Men, women, children, all knew how to use one as a fact of life whether they liked it or not because it was the responsible thing to do.  We, as Americans, were not very far from a lawless society (then, about 50 years from Jesse James and in the prime of Mafia Wars) and understood that the bad guy could easily be around the corner and would just as easily shoot you dead as the next person.  Prisons were worse then, and some would argue they would be places to stay out of more and make a person more desperate.  Perhaps.

But back to my point, when interviewed as to why no one invaded the country itself, enemies always replied: It was crazy to do so.  Everyone was armed and it would be like fighting an army the size of a country.

Now, before you get yourselves tied into a knot about how irresponsible it is to give a firearm to everyone, I’m not saying EVERYONE.  I’m saying be RESPONSIBLE.

We should teach this responsibility as we do manners, societal norms (no spitting, no mooning, that sort of thing).  Someone who is taught to respect a weapon and understand what it can do from an early age will also be less likely to take it to school and shoot up their enemies.  Some of you will not understand this logic, I accept that and move on.

If we gather this responsibility unto ourselves, if we take our own safety to ourselves instead of relying so heavily on a reactive entity like the government (be it civil, state, federal or martial), then we give them less to do, they spend less money, and one of my favorite quotes from Eisenhower’s speech will become reality:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft. The cost of     one modern, heavy bomber is this: a modern, brick school in more than 30 cities.”

It’s frightening, isn’t it?  And everyone who asks the government to spend less money, I give you this:  In order for them to spend less, we have to take back more.  WE, AS CITIZENS, HAVE TO TAKE BACK MORE RESPONSIBILITY.

Personal safety is only one avenue, but I promise you, it is the fastest, most effective, easiest, and will have the most financial impact.  Will it happen in two, three, five years?  No.  Ten?  Maybe.  If people start right now.


An Introduction to Paisley – a new blogsite

19 Feb

Good Afternoon and Welcome to Vaguely Paisley!

Today seemed like as good a day as any to finally split my original blog denagray.wordpress.com into two.  I’ve been struggling with a split personality over there (creative versus political) and I think it’s a little too much to maintain on one blog.  Therefore, we have VP.

Here, I will focus on reacting to our current world tapestry, hitting on subjects like the Constitution, Gun Ownership, popular political figures and of course, politics.  I will also hit on current world events as they strike me.  My first major move, however, will be to shift all my non-creative posts from denagray.wordpress.com, to over here.

I will try to keep them chronological and hopefully any referencing will remain intact.  I will also list the original date stamp and origin at the top of the post so you’ll know you’re reading something from the past.

I hope this will be something good and less confusing for my fanfiction readers and deviantart friends, which was my original focus for denagray.wordpress.com.

Sometimes you just have to say what’s on your mind before you forget it and I didn’t realize how often I did that until today.  Forgive me for hijacking my own blog for a political soap box, and I hope you’ll enjoy it over here since it won’t be littered with Harry Potter or Transformer references ;)

Thanks for reading! xoxo Dena

The State of Depression

19 Feb

This article on http://www.weather.com was rather interesting until the last page.

The 10 Most Depressing States in the U.S.

To summarize, it lists (rather irresponsibly and), alphabetically, indicators of what makes these states possibly depressive to live in.  Things like poor economy, high unemployment rate, poor health statistics, etc.  I was rather intrigued by these statistics until I read the last page, listed for West Virginia:

The Mountain State is ranked last or next-to-last in every mental-health category on our list, including the average number of “mentally unhealthy” days residents have per month and the percentage of people who experience frequent mental distress (15%).

One reason may be that roughly two-thirds of West Virginians live in rural areas, where both steady jobs and access to mental health care can be hard to come by. A 2000 study found that while nearly 1 in 3 residents living in rural areas had “a high level” of depression symptoms, almost half had never been treated for the condition by any doctor, let alone a psychiatrist or mental-health specialist.

I think the most interesting sentence there is the one listing their supposition behind these markers for frequent mental distress: these people live in rural areas where almost half had never been treated for their conditions by any doctor, psychiatrist or mental-health specialist.

Doesn’t this seem a bit arrogant to you?

I can see one side of the coin, and probably how it was meant, that it is a largely agrarian, mining, and industrial society that has incredibly sparse access to the luxury of a mental health physician…but the other side of the coin?

Are they really implying that rural society must be depressed because they are rural?  That’s how this last page read to me.  Not to mention that it was incredibly irresponsible to make a LIST of the most depressing states for those states to see.  Gee, let’s just tell people how sick they are! (and watch the money roll in for the medical profession, I think?)

Look at that last sentence.  “1 in 3 residents living in rural areas had a ‘high level’ of depression symptoms“.  Where are the actual numbers stating that these people have depression?  I can sigh and have a bad day, but maybe I just stubbed my toe.  Does that mean I’m depressed?  Maybe I’m having trouble making my checkbook balance and my kid’s clothes weren’t completely dry before sending them off to school today so they might catch cold before the day’s out.  With winter storms like we’ve been having, every day being cloudy and rainy and snowy…YEAH, I’m going to look depressed, but that doesn’t mean I am clinically or chronically depressed to the point where I need help.  You can observe many points where I might look like I need medical attention, but I can look on Webmd.com all day long and find symptoms I’m sick with, too.  That doesn’t mean I’m really sick.  I can write an entire thesis on the supposed connection between strep throat carriers and autistic children, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.

My point is, the medical profession and their researchers are becoming increasingly arrogant to believe that just because they say something is so, we need to believe it and never question them.  I know this is one report and one article, but honestly, how many times do you read or see some kind of advertisement that wants you to try something new, simply because you “might” be expressing those symptoms?

THAT’S unhealthy, and something incredibly arrogant in the current pharmaceutical and medical professions.

I leave you with this:  Please don’t hesitate to question your doctors.  They are human and second opinions are well-respected.  Don’t fall for this claptrap that someone puts online about “depressing states”.  If you feel depressed, yes of course, get whatever help you need and I’m sure you (and especially West Virginia) have a medical professional or at least a counselor within at least 100 miles that can help.  Do not forget the power of friends and family, or if you’re religious, the higher power of your faith.

What have you seen recently that has been a solid representation of irresponsible medical advertising?

A Question of Ownership

17 Jan

So, considering the previous post is about gun control, the question before us really should be: who do you want to have the guns?

Because there will be guns. No one’s getting rid of them. Do you want them? Do you want them to be in the hands of our military?  Do you want them in the hands of hired professionals?  Do you want them in the hands of criminals? (which the case will be if guns become illegal)

A gun is a tool of control and America knows how to use that tool. No one will be able to enforce a culture of millions of people to simply throw away every single one.

Why? Because there are other people outside our country who will come in with guns and feed the populace with them, regardless of legality. Then the good will become criminal in order to “protect”. It’s in our nature.

Survival of the fittest, call it what you will, but it is. We hit with the biggest rock to protect what is ours. Its that basic and for that reason alone, there will always be guns.

So, on that, decide. Who do you want to have them. Us? Them? You? It will never be NO ONE.

As I watch our freedom break…

17 Jan

After reading this article and watching the news, I’m having difficulty coming to terms with how exactly to react to the newly proposed gun control measures.

I had a discussion with a coworker about this very proposal the other day and he cited that it was ridiculous for someone to want an assault rifle. He said, “Well, what if I want a tank in my front yard? A battleship in my backyard?” He was trying to be facetious and point out that it was something extraneous and unnecessary for the public to have access to these things, but my immediate reaction was: YOU CAN! If you have the resources, the space, and you’re not infringing on someone else’s rights, YOU CAN! You have the right to own these things, be they rifles, machinery, or whatever! (Of course, this is an extreme example and military surplus laws providing).

Freedom of Speech, Religion, freedom from oppression and the Right to KEEP and Bear Arms were so important to our foundation as a fledgling country, that they were the very first things they thought about when amending the Constitution. We have had many important things brought before our government and after much deliberation, they were listed as amendments to the Constitution, and very few as far reaching as the first two:



Proposal date

Enactment date

1st Protects freedom of speechfreedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
2nd Protects an individual’s right to bear arms September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
3rd Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnessesand to retain counsel September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
9th Protects rights not enumerated in the constitution. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
11th Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity March 4, 1794 February 7, 1795
12th Revises presidential election procedures December 9, 1803 June 15, 1804
13th Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime January 31, 1865 December 6, 1865
14th Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues June 13, 1866 July 9, 1868
15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude February 26, 1869 February 3, 1870
16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913
17th Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913
18th Establishes prohibition of alcohol (repealed by Twenty-first Amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919
19th Establishes women’s suffrage June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920
20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the “lame duck amendment” March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933
21st Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment and prohibits violations of state laws regarding alcohol. February 20, 1933 December 5, 1933
22nd Limits the number of times that a person can be elected president. A person cannot be elected president more than twice. Additionally, a person who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected cannot be elected more than once. March 24, 1947 February 27, 1951
23rd Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College June 16, 1960 March 29, 1961
24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes September 14, 1962 January 23, 1964
25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession July 6, 1965 February 10, 1967
26th Establishes the right to vote for those age 18 years or older. March 23, 1971 July 1, 1971
27th Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress September 25, 1789 May 7, 1992[1]

Interesting, right? What I find most intriguing is reading the 4th-9th Amendments. Especially the 9th, but I’ll get to that in a minute. The fourth through eighth amendments would – eventually – be directly affected by infringing on our rights so directly as this recent proposition attempts.

This is what we’re afraid of. It’s not so much that we want to be able to shoot anything in our path, or that we’re a particularly violent populace (there will always be evil and good co-habitant and humanity is incapable of being utopic) but we’re afraid that these basic respects and rights – that we feel are part of the very foundation of our country – will begin to crumble and fall with such a series of bans. These bans start reasonable, such as banning fully automatic weaponry, or magazines that hold more than ten bullets (I actually don’t agree with it, but we’re using it for example). These are things that most people can ‘let go’, as we don’t need them in a home and most untrained people are rather afraid of assault weaponry. Fine. What next? Banning silencers? Banning semi-automatic weaponry? That includes the Great American 1911.

Look at the wording and see how it can be used against us before agreeing to it outright. If one is banned, soon another will be, then another. Say semi-automatics are banned, what’s next? Handguns? We’ll be left with simple rifles and shotguns, probably with a special hunting license and only if we’re apart from a population of so-many people, or separated from the road by so-many hundred yards.

How fast do you think these things will happen? Very, if we allow one step, one inch, one small pebble to fall off this Freedom Cliff. It will avalanche until we have no rights left to protect ourselves.

Forgive me, but I have scenes from Orwell’s 1984 constantly running through my head as the avalanche continues, unchecked through all of our personal liberties.

Before I dissent into that, let’s take a logical look at what the fourth through eighth amendments stand for and how they can be affected by such a decline:

4th: Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

What determines that which is unreasonable? The government does, not us. So when they come knocking on our doors to collect those newly banned weapons, is it with a warrant? Do they just demand we hand over our property?

5th: Protects the right of due process and protects us from self-incrimination.

Are we incriminating ourselves if we feel it is against our basic freedoms to keep that which we’ve owned for years? If a ban comes in place, have we automatically incriminated ourselves if we hand them over ‘too late’?

6th: The right to be notified of accusations.

What if someone looks particularly gun-happy? What if they have a passion for weaponry as a hobby? Will these things be snatched away without notification? Yes, it sounds extreme, but how far does this press? How far does the ban go? Will it be retroactive? Carried out by profiling? Will we have to register everything now? And as far as the new proposal for controlling gun trafficking, how quickly can that spiral out of control, if something of ours is stolen but we can’t prove it was stolen because we couldn’t claim we had it in the first place? Remember, self-incrimination.

7th: The basic right to a trial by jury.

Can you imagine how any of the above listed possibilities will now tie up, drain and FUND the judicial system? We’ll be in court for years trying to gain our BASIC freedoms back.

8th: Prohibits excessive fines or bail, also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

So, if we are defending ourselves, in our home, with a weapon that would (possibly soon) be considered contraband, how steep will that fine be? How will the police treat us? As terrorists? After all, we have banned weaponry. Will we then be beaten and our property taken from us?

Now, this brings us to the 9th amendment. Ah, yes, I particularly love this one. It has so much depth to it and I don’t think anyone has really looked at it. Especially the fourth article:

Article the fourth….. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Did you catch that? It is ILLEGAL for the President, for Congress, for any member of government to actually infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. They are breaking the constitution by trying to do so.

Now, the other, very quickly-read part of that article is this: “Being necessary to the security of a free state”. Think about that. Some of you will argue that the security of that state is taken care of by the police and military. Is it? Really? These entities are reactionary, not protective entities. They enforce the laws, but cannot intervene (yet) unless a law has been broken. This article states that a well-regulated Militia is supposed to handle this, but we’ve not had a “militia” for over a century. What defines this Militia? Dictionaries refer to it as “A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” Hmm. Emergency. What, then would they constitute an emergency? Is that defined Federally or Gubernatorially? The state is supposed to be able to function independently of the federal government, so perhaps the state makes this decision?  It is, however, protected Federally. So, the federal government would then protect the right of a standing militia? Do we have to sign up for this, or is it every able-bodied citizen over a certain age?

Interesting, isn’t it? That I have to sit here and try to define what it means to be able to protect my family, whether I have the right or if I’m to be denied based on my status as a civilian.

The United States of America is a country built on freedom from oppression. So very much of our own sacred symbolism reflects this. Look at the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France – a long standing ally. Think about the inscription on the tablet. It is literally the dates of the American and French Revolutions. These dates are so important that they are imprinted upon the first thing people think of when they think of Freedom. Now, let’s look at the poem on the base of this statue, by Emma Lazarus:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” How amazing is this line? Her name “Mother of Exiles”. Liberty. For so very long, this is where people came in to this country, that is what they saw, this is what they read and that is how they felt. Why are we endangering this?

America is the land of freedom, the last true bastion and example of a government NOT infringing on a public’s rights. Some of you might say that I am exploding this out of proportion, that this is still extraneous, but we have the freedom of choice and ownership NOW.

What happens when that is taken away from us, or worse, we give up that freedom? What becomes of our personal liberties, then? That Liberty become weakened and the precipice of freedom we’re teetering on starts crumbling. This is why the American populace has become so passionate about such a proposition as this little amendment.

We believe we have the right to pursue our own happiness. We believe we have the right to freedom from oppressive rule. These are BASICS, stated in our very Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the founding documents of this country.

Now, I understand that there comes a point when we have to say “enough”. We have to interpret according to modern needs and clarify those rights based on such. The abolition of slavery and indentured servitude, as well as the basic ability to vote have been established thusly, but these are things that were defined by our very motto: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Do we have the right to interpret something that inhibits those rights instead of protecting them?

Take a look at the 18th and 21st amendments. Prohibition. This is a prime example of three things: Amendments can and will be repealed, that the American populace can work together to get this done (even over the course of decades), and that the American populace does not like infringement of their freedoms. Violence actually increased during this time of prohibition, when this law was set in place to reduce it.

The following are statistics detailing how much worse crime became:

  • Police funding: INCREASED $11.4 Million

  • Arrests for Prohibition Las Violations: INCREASED 102+%

  • Arrests for Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct: INCREASED 41%

  • Arrests of Drunken Drivers: INCREASED 81%

  • Thefts and Burglaries: INCREASED 9%

  • Homicides, Assault, and Battery: INCREASED 13%

  • Number of Federal Convicts: INCREASED 561%

  • Federal Prison Population: INCREASED 366%

  • Total Federal Expenditures on Penal Institutions: INCREASED 1,000%

Huh. Wait a minute. The government set a law in place to put a ban on something that was considered the root of trouble for that time period (“The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.” -Reverend Billy Sunday), and 26 years later, that ban was repealed because it did not reduce crime, it increased it?

Really.  Huh.

Now, there’s something we take for granted during this time period: the simple act of purchasing and drinking alcohol. Yes, it can get out of control, and yes, some bad seeds abuse it, but on the whole…they found that banning this “root of evil” did not actually reduce criminal activity. It drove people to rise up and act in defiance of that law. Entire fortunes were made breaking this law, finding ways around it, creating little priest-holes of iniquity under their noses, but it in no way reduced crime related to alcohol.

Was it because we’re just that bad? Or did we chafe under so much of a yoke? I think it was the latter, that Americans felt they had no other way to show their disquiet than to “act up”, like an ignored and over-protected child. Honestly, if you take away such a right as our own protection (which this kind of ban is CLOSELY related to) then how else can we respond?

We do not take kindly to having our rights impeded and should this happen, we will find a way to fight it. This is who we are and we’ve proven it time and time again. Our country was founded on people sick of being downtrodden, corralled, ruled and beleaguered by the very governments they fled.

We have entire mixtures of populations all about this country, grown solely from political refugees. The majority of the American population started their families here in order to throw off the yoke of an oppressive world and start anew in the land of freedom.

And now, like the pre-World War II Austrians, our country is on the brink of economic disaster and someone offers us a shiny package of promise. Promise of change, of protection and happiness. Of progress. All we have to do is hand over our freedoms. Like they did, we will be willingly handing over our very protection and opening ourselves to a freefall towards dictatorship. We will become a conquered people, gladly and meekly.

What then? Who will come to our aid to defend our freedoms?

Do you think other countries will be happy to step in and liberate us from our prideful fall?

No. They will see that we did it to ourselves, and let us wallow in it. We’re the only country left in this world with the power, the position, the beliefs and the ability to stand up and help those in need…

If that fails, who will help us?

No one.

Because no one will be left.

Seriously. Think about those who would actually stand up and try to help us. Who would they talk to? Who would they advise? How would they go about it? Would they have the military and the money as well as the political stance within their own country to be able to step in and save us from a spiraling downfall like this?

No. They would talk with our government, and be appeased. Or if not, they would try to fund factions as a means of help, but then be fined by our own government for intervening or funding an illegal action. If I am right, that is also close kin to a war-crime, and our allies in the UN have long felt that we are too aggressive as a populace. Our government would also find their new-found welcome by less-aggressive countries to be appealing. This move would be beneficial to other countries, much more so than any conscience might mitigate otherwise. Cultural differences aside, I do not think there would be many countries at all that would even bother to give us a hand up. They would watch and wait to see who came out on top.

We are then left to fight our own fight. This is how I do it, how will you?

The American States of Taxation and Dependence

19 Apr

I’ve been absent for the past several weeks and you can blame taxes.  It’s that time of year, and up until yesterday, I was swamped with paperwork for three people and itemization that will make one’s eyes cross.  This took up so much of my time and gave me multiple migraines, that it got me back to thinking about the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence.

This country was founded by people who were essentially wanting to start a new life away from the European forms of Monarchy and Religious Persecution.  There were so many who were taxed into debtor’s prison that they’d never again see the light of day were it not for a few social reformation experimentalists like General James E. Oglethorpe.  He took debtors, prisoners, people down on their luck that needed a fresh start and wanted to prove they could be productive members of society if given the chance.  He wasn’t the only one, but he purchased their debts and these people became indentured servants for the amount of time to pay off this debt.  They worked for their freedom and many of them achieved this.

Now, I know you don’t need a history lesson, but, perhaps a reminder of the kind of people that started this country.  Yes, there were the titled gentry that obtained gigantic swathes of land in a game of chance or someone’s good will, but they were not and never have been the backbone of this country.  The American Revolution was fought and won by the sweat and blood of the working Colonial, and our country continues this tradition to this day.

The main difference is:  We allow ourselves to be taxed into complacency.

What happened to those militia, those fighters, those Colonials that stood up to a Monarchy taxing them to death?  I look around and I see us devolving back into what we fled.  Is it comfortable?  Is it some inevitable path for a successful country to take?  Are we no longer the Red Giant Sun of this world, and fading into ignominy?

We’ve lost top credit billing, we’ve lost top currency value, we’ve lost age old relationships with fellow countries that have been with us since the beginning…  Who are we, anymore?  The politicians haven’t changed.  We can’t blame them, not really.  They’re the same selfish and self-aggrandizing creature they always were.

So it has to be us that’s changed.

We no longer bother to protect ourselves and our own interests, and instead, want others to do it for us.  We’re lazy (in comparison with what we’ve been).  We’re lazy and complacent and fat on the labors of our fathers before us.  What will this mean for the generations ahead?  Some say it will be very little time before we have either another civil war, finally splitting the country into smaller bits.  Some say we will be taxed into such a state of bankruptcy that we’ll have no choice but to invite other countries to buy our debt from us.

Read that again and think about the situation between the US and China.  That’s already happening, isn’t it?  And you know who’s spending that money?  We are.  The government isn’t doing it by themselves.  They’re a bad parent borrowing and selling everything they can think of to keep their children in the luxury they’ve come to expect.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no where near holding them blameless.  I am, however, stating that American Citizens need to take some of that blame, themselves, instead of pointing the finger and yelling “He did it!” like some juvenile child.

And to those who do point the finger at one person, I shake my head at you.  The president is no more singly responsible for this country than you or I are.  His choices have been made based on the efforts and information gathered by hundreds of people, and pushed and pressured into decisions by the men and women of our congress.

That being said, they are a figurehead and do have a responsibility to be what America is, to show what we are to the rest of the world.  He is our reflection, and I’m not happy with the past twenty years of presidents nor what they’ve shown.  I’m not happy with the current crop of candidates, either.  They’re all attacking the oval office as if it were home base in a game of tag instead of realizing it’s the figurehead of a nation desperately in need of redirection from this overpowering swell of government involvement and taxes.  The United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution were all formed to move away from this kind of tyranny.  We need to watch what’s happening in the Mediterranean and Northern Africa, because that’s going to happen here within the next generation.

Our children.

As we have done from the state of things our parents left us, our children will also reap the benefits or difficulties we ply upon the world, now.

Remember this the next time you want to blame Obama or Bush or W or Clinton for all the wrong doings in this country.  And remember that when you point a finger, three more point back at you.

I challenge the American populace to take more responsibility.  Take it back upon yourselves instead of foisting it off and  gaining this country more taxes.  We were not made to be this way.  We are an independent, proud country and should remember how to act that way.

Let’s get Political…

9 Mar

(originally posted on 3/9/12)

To the mass-media idiots: Can I be a dork and just say that it’s actually still a multi-candidate toss up on the Republican side of the fence and not just between Romney and Santorum, as some people think because they’ve received the most popular votes in the primaries since January? Popular vote has nothing to do with elections in the end, popular vote determines which way the electoral college votes and each region has a set number of electoral college voters. Gingrich has more electoral college votes than Santorum, even though he’s got about 100k less popular vote and only carried 2 states. (Remember, that’s how W won over Gore in 2000, electoral college over popular vote)

Technically they’re all still in the game until at least May when all the Republican’s votes are done. Sucks, but true. I have no idea why the Republicans decided to stretch their voting period from February to May (aside from trying to push all those ID laws through which keep getting shunted off by judges in Democrat states) but that’s what they’re doing, so there are no decisions yet.

And on a side note, from the laws and declarations that are flying through congress and the executive office over the past few months and I’m sure in the next eight, the Democrats don’t seem to be expecting a win. They didn’t even put forth another candidate. Even when Mr. Clinton was at his best, they put forth at least whispers of someone else wanting to run. There wasn’t even that. I don’t know about you, but that sounds fishy. Or should I say “Lame”?

%d bloggers like this: