IKE- LIPSTICK ON A PIG-PIT BULL PALIN-LEHMAN BROTHERS FAILURE

12 September 2008

Because of the horrendous events of 11 September 2001
the United States is now spending nearly half its annual federal budget – more than one Trillion tax dollars – to manufacture and sustain a delusion of so-called National and Homeland Security. The status quo, in full support of the elite minority faction, keep telling us we can even more get security by invading and occupying some nations and threatening others. Pretending that America is safe and citizens are free, we are neither.

There is more than a general consensus in 2008 that real security in the United States is doubtful. In spite of all the borrowing and spending by congress and the executive, in spite of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, war, torture, degenerating civil rights and liberty. In spite of a vengeful fundamentalist unitary executive who acts like a king issuing decree by executive order and legislative signing statement, the United States is impotent against terrorists and terrorism.

The inadequacy and failure of the status quo model and minority faction rule is now being exposed. If we, as a nation, choose to pass up a rare historical opportunity to carry out another American’s Revolution, make a new system of government, and cause an irreversible shift of power, the current status quo will be the condition and position of America until its demise. To establish what most citizens imagine and think about when discussing security terms must be redefined and our nation's means and objectives re-framed. Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is, for the moment, the only viable solution.

In his essay "The Ultimate Power," found in Passionate Declarations, Professor Howard Zinn discusses redefining terms and changing the framework of our objectives writing:

Statistics indicate that, of the industrialized nations, those that spend the least for military purposes show the greatest economic progress. … [The] habits of governments [are] so deeply dug into old policies of militarism and war … if a great popular movement should develop to insist on change, … if it became large enough to threaten the political power of government …[it] must be driven by a vision. … The vision in this case, for people all over the world, is the most inspiring of all, that of a world without war, without police states, … and with immense resources now free to be used for human needs. …It is, of course, an enormous job to be done. But never in history has there been one more worthwhile. … All we need to do is make the first moves, speak the first words.
…The conversion of resources requires a conversion of language. New definitions of old terms could become a part of the common vocabulary. The old definitions have misled us and caused monstrous harm.
The word for security, for instance, would take on a new meaning: the health and well being of people, which is the greatest strength and the most lasting security a nation can have. (A simple parable makes this clear: Would a family living in a high crime city feel more "secure" if it put machine guns in its windows, dynamite charges in the yard, and tripwires all around the house, at the cost of half the family income and less food for the children?) The analogy is not far fetched. It is an understatement of what nations do today.

Following up on Professor Zinn’s ideas keep in mind that our nation is now spending more than one Trillion dollars annually to produce nothing more than the illusion and delusion of national and homeland security. Future spending is projected to be even higher. Citizens must ask and answer some simple but very serious questions.

Would we not in fact be substantially and measurably more secure if every citizen were guaranteed the best basic medical care from conception to coffin? Would we not be more secure if every citizen were guaranteed the best education and training throughout the course of their life? Would our discernible security not be more reliable if every citizen actively and willingly contributed to the nation through a brief period of useful work on its behalf? Would citizens not be more united and devoted to each other and America at large if every person, every business and every corporation that should pay taxes actually paid them? If all citizens had an opportunity to exercise authentic material control over government actions and spending would we not substantially increase the meaning and degree of national and domestic security? And finally, is it not undeniably obvious that America and American citizens would be infinitely more secure if every citizen were guaranteed that our United States government treats all living citizens in a truly equal way by establishing and maintaining absolutely equal status, privilege, and rights, and conducting its business in a consummate ethical manner?

As for national security with regard to foreign affairs, is it not reasonable to believe American security is more likely if our government does not invade and occupy other countries, or engage in constant bullying by threatening others? If leaders used our know-how and influence to aid and support those around the world that are struggling against totalitarian rulers, tyranny, ethnic cleansing, or religious genocide because it is the right and humane thing to do and without expecting anything in return, would we not be infinitely more secure? For example would we not be better off supporting Venezuela rather than Israel or Saudi Arabia?

If, instead of flouting our alleged superiority and very real military arsenal to force untenable Milton Friedman wild west capitalist economic terrorism and social changes upon places where they are unwelcome, unwarranted, and unwanted, would we not enhance our own reputation and thus our security? If we employed our ingenuity, technology, and authority exclusively to help others less fortunate, those mired in devastating poverty or oppression? If America helped them to rise up and determine their own destiny, while allowing them to remain true to their traditional beliefs and culture, instead of trying to make them more like Americans. If, instead "giving" Democracy to those that do not necessarily want it at gunpoint, or forcing the American way of life upon other cultures, the United States lived up to its own ideals, would we not find ourselves with greater demonstrable security?

America has always claimed and, until recently, always been believed by other nations to be the world's first and strongest protector of basic Human Rights. I ask, if our foreign policy were to be equal to our marketing and mythology what nation, what group or cause, what ideology or terrorist would have reason or grievance to attack the United States or any of its interests, facilities or territory? Honestly? Really think about the implications. Our hubris, ignorance, and cupidity – our hypocrisy – is the source and cause of any terrorism, any attack or disruption we are now experiencing or will face in the future.

If our nation acted as it spoke, practiced what it preaches, or did unto others, as it would have them do unto America, we would have no enemy. Only when someone is wronged, intentionally or otherwise, will they become an enemy.

Generally, people treated with common courtesy, respect, honesty and without deception will not and cannot become an enemy. They may still hurt you, but any such action would be motivated by something else; like greed or a need to dominate, something emotional or psychological but not the venom and vitriol that inspires terrorism and real enemies.

Imagine the United States being a humanitarian super power rather than a military super power. Imagine America being a facilitator and supporter of people and nations rather than an invader and occupier. Imagine being the world's healer and the planets’ supreme protector rather than its interrogator, torturer and plunderer. Imagine if the United States government, its citizens and its corporations, were focused on and dedicated to improving human living conditions for all people around the world rather than increasing the wealth, position, and power of an elite minority faction. Imagine that human progress, happiness, good health, unlimited education, opportunity and absolute equality of status, privileges, rights and ethical conduct by government is the most important objective of United States citizens and government. More important than profit, wealth, conquest, oil, or even image and prestige; imagine that people are more valuable than anything of or beyond this world. If you can imagine these things, then you can imagine the true spirit and purpose of the United States of America and its aspiration as expressed in Declaration of Independence. Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government will make it possible.

Can you imagine the United States of America being this kind of nation? Certainly the two major presidential candidates and the two ruling political parties do not and cannot inspire such high minded thoughts. Until we, the people, carry out another Revolution throwing out our bad government and instituting a new one based on Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government our security and safety will remain as a source of fear, oppression, and profit.

Next time I will conclude my examination of security with an in depth look at terror and terrorism. Until then, Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.

BRISTOL PALIN-MAVERICK McCAIN-RNC-HANNA-IKE

5 September 2008

Our in depth examination and discussion about the fallacy of security in the United States of America continues.

The deception of America’s security begins in the words of the Declaration of Independence with the suggestion that "all are…equal." Recall Thomas Jefferson’s meaning that all are equal in rights and not necessarily in abilities. Although this myth of equality was vital when instigating rebellion it was not considered important enough to be explicitly included as part of our Constitution. In the Preamble ‘equality’ is overtly implicit as a sub-text lending support to American security mythology.

The Preamble is unambiguous in its assertion that we, the people, did ordain and establish our constitutional framework. Principally for the purposes of organizing a system and process of government to provide security for life, liberty, and property. It is a legal and binding social contract. The framers agreed that the ends of government are to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. All of which are aspects of either domestic or national security. They also pledged to devote resources to creating a more perfect union and ensuring liberty’s blessings.

Citizens first learn about the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution in school. This process generally includes memorizing the Preamble. As a result, the natural and logical inference one draws is that all this security, protection, justice, and the supposed blessings secured by government are for every member of the group. That is to say, Americans believe this Constitutional contract must apply equally to all citizens, private and corporate. Therein one discovers the fraud, the deception and ultimately, the myth.

The plain unvarnished non-mythologized truth is that our independence was declared, our Revolution instigated, and our United States Constitution was constructed and ratified by and for the benefit and protection of the property and interests of an elite wealthy minority faction; not for ALL. The only role common citizens and poor farmers had in establishing this nation was the actual fighting and winning of the Revolutionary War.

In Passionate Declarations, re-titled and re-published in 2003 by Perennial, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, historian, activist, and author, Dr. Howard Zinn, discussing the opening phrase of our Constitution’s Preamble writes:
"The Constitution thus looked as if it were written by all the people, representing their interests. … In fact, the Constitution was drawn up by fifty-five men, all white and mostly rich, who represented a certain elite group in the new nation."

Dr. Zinn also writes about this extensively in A People’s History of the United States, first published in 1980 by Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, and revised most recently in 2003. He notes that, "In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that representative government was needed to maintain peace in a society ridden by factional disputes." Disputes caused from, as Madison says, "the various and unequal distribution of property."

According to Zinn, Madison saw the real problem threatening survival of the United States going forward as one of "minority faction." The solution offered by the Constitution was a large republic ranging over thirteen states. Madison then says: " It will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other… The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but [it] will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States." Madison reasoned that, any rabble-rousers, or even someone with a legitimate cause, if separated – isolated, could be controlled and ultimately shut down. Thereby keeping the peace and security for those with wealth and property.

But Professor Zinn asks, "[Is] it the aim of government simply to maintain order…? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral… but participants?"
In Federalist #10, James Madison is direct about whose peace he supports. He remarks: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it." [Emphasis added.] James Madison impugns common citizens’ redress for economic stimulus, for relief that had been assured, and a demand to have equal access, opportunity, and protection by designating our purported inalienable rights of citizenship to be both improper and wicked. This act exposes his true aristocratic nature and loyalty to the powerful status quo.

Madison was a member of the original American pseudo-aristocratic class that also included Hamilton, John Adams, Jefferson, and Washington. Most of our constitutional framers were an elite cohort of men that were already established in positions of wealth and power. The group also included lawyers, shipping tycoons, slave traders, speculators and moneychangers. This minority faction instigated rebellion and revolution for less than altruistic or compassionate ends. Upon attaining victory this minority acted to institutionalize its position, power, and priority interests as synonymous with our new nation’s objectives by assigning exclusive authority and privilege to themselves and the minority faction they represented at the Constitutional Convention.

In A People’s History of the United States, Professor Zinn refers to historian Charles Beard’s early twentieth century book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, in which Beard points out that, "for their own interest, the rich either have to directly control the government or the laws by which government operates." By studying the political ideas and economic backgrounds of the fifty-five men who assembled the Constitution, Charles Beard discovered that most of them were wealthy, and that most had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government.

Mr. Beard also noted that four groups were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. I would add native people to the list. Because those groups were not represented, the Constitution did not reflect their interests. But, according to Zinn, Beard wanted to make it clear that, "he [Beard] did not think the Constitution was written merely to benefit the Founding Fathers personally. Rather, it was to benefit the groups the Founders represented, the ‘economic interests they understood and felt in concrete, definite form through their own personal experience.’" Charles Beard also warns us that government, including our own, is not neutral.Government always represents the dominant economic [and I would add religious] interests and shapes their constitutions to serve these interests.

By examining the political clauses of our Constitution and the economic interests that created them, it is very easy to recognize it for what it is. The United States Constitution is not the work of wise men simply trying to establish the security of a decent and orderly nation. The final draft language clearly demonstrates that certain parts of society arranged things for their security in order to hold on to their established privileges, power and wealth, while, as Dr. Zinn says, "giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support." From the very beginning of our nation the government has been arranged to divide and control.

That ours is a nation dedicated to providing justice, domestic tranquility, common defense and general welfare for all citizens is the myth of America’s security. The truth is that ‘All’ is narrowly defined and includes primarily wealthy and powerful religious, political, and corporate interests. The remaining 90%-plus of citizens must be content to rely on our rugged individualism and, in deference to our pseudo-aristocratic government and the wealthy donor-class, we should be grateful to live in the greatest, most powerful, most secure and free nation in the history of the world. The security objective of the elite status quo is to protect its own position, power and profit, not all the citizens of the United States.

This process of securing the wealth, powers and position of the American Ruling Class is maintained by granting – usually after much resistance – some number of limited, tightly restricted and controlled civil rights and liberties. All of which continually undergo further limitation and qualification upon review by the courts and legislative amendment. It is unpatriotic to complain about this because every citizen should know by now that, Freedom ain’t Free.

We have traded our liberties for lawyers and our integrity for the myth of security. The illusion and structure of America’s traditional Homeland and National Security model protected and defended thus far by the status quo offers some insight into the deleterious stupor of credulity and cupidity infecting the spirit and character of United States citizens.

Something for readers to consider. More to follow in my next posting. Until then...Give Peace a chance.

James B. Tinsley, B.A.