Election Fraud and Politicians Who Cry

The 2008 Iowa political caucuses are history, and everyone who watches the news knows more than he wanted to know; at least he heard more than he needed to hear - over and over an over. In fact, part of the problem that is a decaying U.S. America is that he listened to it all. To believe this is what it purports to be - a real election of people chosen by an electorate - you have to be Markham's description of Millet's Man With The Hoe, "Stunned and stolid, a brother to the ox."

You can believe, with the Internet and the major media at diametrical odds where the popularity of the political candidates in the current election is concerned, that there is nothing suspicious or irregular about it all? You don't find it strange, for instance, that Ron Paul is the odds on favorite with all the people writing on the Internet, yet according to the major media mired in fifth place with barely ten percent of the vote? Man, nothing better illustrates the non compos mentis state of the public I worry so much about than that. Anyone that propagandized is effectively brain-dead.

Just for an illustration of what I mean by "critical thinking," why would a U.S. Congress - people chosen because they are the most acquisitive, greed and power-maddened people in the country - influenced (I use the most innocuous and innocent term possible) by 56,000 lobbyists - 86 percent of them representatives and employees of the military industrial complex corporations - vote to end the war in Iraq? Why would U.S. Americans - a people for decades reared and steeped in the moral code that says personal selfishness and the "bottom line" are the all-important Eleventh Commandment - believe that anyone (Halliburton, for instance) would lobby the U.S. Congress to end (or even moderate) the war profiting the corporations by hundreds of billions?

Why, in the society and nation I have just described, would corporations profiting by the billions from the labor of illegal aliens - persons willing to work for far less than minimum wage (the same minimum wage lobbyists for those same corporations keep urging congress to raise (for citizens and aliens here legally, that is) - do anything other?

Let me make certain you understand that long sentence:

1. With millions of people in the U.S. illegally (and surreptitiously - no way to know who or how many there are) and willing to work for whatever they can get, the U.S. Congress will raise the minimum wage for citizens.

2. The very people who will benefit from not only the unfair labor market and the cheap labor it provides are those who control the "representatives" in Congress. These same people and their "representatives" are capitalizing by their "under the table" exploitation of illegal aliens, evading payment of income taxes, social security taxes, workers compensation or insurance therefore, and more.

YOU THINK THESE SAME "REPRESENTATIVES" WILL CLOSE THE BORDERS AND/OR DO ANYTHING MEANINGFUL ABOUT THE TORRENT OF ALIENS POURING INTO THE U.S.?

Then you probably believe any of these Jack S. Phogbounds - "Ain't no Jack S. like OUR Jack S." - will attempt to change IRS or the nation's ludicrously un-American tax system. Or stop lobbying in Washington (careful, John Edwards: these people are ruthless killers, you know). Or stop the war in Iraq. Or do anything but suck up to the Halliburton, General Bullmoose & Company of the military industrial complex.

In some homes, though, the remotes wore out. Viewers trying to escape the deluge of claptrap being spewed relentlessly ran from channel to channel in desperation. Some may even - gasp - have turned to reading a newspaper. Or, even more incredible, a book!

As Rita and I sat watching it all, we began recalling previous election campaigns - all the campaign rhetoric promises. There is no possible way to list them all here - it would take literally days (check the internet or a library, you'll see why). Campaign promises have morphed into something generic, something as familiar as the lines of a favorite play or skit. When the pontificating and bloviating politician starts a line, his audience of senior citizens can finish it.

The generality of statement and speech during a presidential election campaign is so broad as to mean utterly nothing (have you ever wondered what a politician or bureaucrat means when he says he'll take full responsibility?); nevertheless, a nation of youth like those who voted for Barak Obama (for instance) are too ignorant of history to know. They haven't heard it all dozens of times, and they won't listen to their parents or grandparents.

Uh-uh, they listen to the MOCKINGBIRD media and its pandering pundits. So it is that a candidate like Congressman Ron Paul got so little attention from voters younger than middle age. Statements like his concerning reasons the U.S. has become a pariah in the world such that people like Osama bin Laden and Moslems and Arabs generally retaliate against us are portrayed by the federally-controlled media as tantamount to treason. When comedian George Carlin remarked that the 9-11 attack wasn't all that surprising given the fact of our behavior toward the rest of the planet, and Colorado professor Ward Churchill's book "Roosting Chickens" delineated it all in itemized detail, they were, in fact, called traitors by White House political sycophants like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others. From the candidates other than Paul, we get the same claptrap. We are the good guys, say the candidates, we are not an "aggressor nation," and we should be "proud of America."

What does history say? History says that while the candidates bloviate, a Federal Reserve Banker, Beardsley Ruml recommended in 1946 an end to income taxation, and political candidate after candidate swore himself an enemy of taxation, federal taxation has grown relentlessly. The reason? Well, try to tell yourself it's mere coincidence that military spending has grown apace, more now that $16,000,000,000,000. Try to explain away the fact - a fact neither the candidates nor their constituents want to recognize or hear of - that as distinct from other nations, the United States dominates the world with the military power resulted from all that taxation and spending. Thanks to oppressive secrecy and to Operation MOCKINGBIRD, U.S. citizens are just about totally ignorant of the fact that our military bases and their garrisons encircle the planet.

During none of the political campaigns, including their specious "debates," will the nation hear that a vast network of U.S. miliary installations occupies every continent except Antarctica. Yet unless they know of the extent to which we flaunt our military dominance of the planet, no one listening to the campaign and debates can begin to understand the size of the threat we represent to the world and its peoples. Neither can any of the persons eagerly stating their preference for this or that candidate have any idea of the extent to which this kind of militarism undermines our system of constitutional government. The size of our military and the power of the military industrial complex corporations that have spawned it makes everything the political candidates say utter nonsense.

Sure John Edwards will throw the miliary industrial complex lobbyists out of Washington. Sure he will.

Our military deploys more than half a million soldiers and their dependents, spies, technicians, and civilian military contractors in nations all over the planet. We have as many as six thousand military installations in the United States, and more than seven hundred around the world. We operate additionally scores of secret bases, bases about which even the governments of the nations they occupy don't know. We have thirteen (or is it fourteen?) naval task forces built around aircraft carriers in all of the world oceans, a threat as naked as any can be.

But it all tickles to death U.S. corporations, especially the military industrial corporations who own government in the U.S. The cost of building and maintaining that many military installations is staggering, something simply beyond the ken of even highly intelligent and educated people. We're talking about most of a trillion dollars, after all. And the cost of bases isn't all, of course. The Pentagon and U.S. military deploy to our overseas bases as many as 275,000 uniformed personnel, together with a least that many dependents and civilian officials, and at least 50,000 locally hired foreign nationals. The taxpayer, kept totally in the dark during and by charades like last night's Iowa caucuses propaganda extravaganza, mind you, foots the bill for it all.

But Mike Huckabee "shares our values." Sure he does. Ron Paul, on the other hand, who tells you at least some of the truth - well, he doesn't share your values.

Of it all, no one thing is as disconcerting for the thinking mind still aware of what is being done to the nation's mind as the fact that after each "segment" having to do with the elections and the campaign for the most powerful office in human history, with decisions that might very well result in cataclysm of unequalled proportions including the end of most life on the planet, the major media discuss with equal time and attention Britney Spears. Think of that, if you still can. There has never in history been anything so socially, societally, and nationally sick - behavior indicative of lost touch with reality and the priorities attendant associated with reality consciousness.

It is a thing akin to going through the check-out counter at the supermarket, viewing the tabloid newspapers and magazines there, and realizing that many of the people who buy and read such drivel have also voted in past elections.

It tells you something. It tells of a nation who, by handing over to children money, empowered them economically. The children had not earned the money, did not have to (and, prospectively in their minds, would NEVER have to) earn it, and had, therefore, no reason to develop or otherwise acquire priorities. The result was generations of citizens who could be easily manipulated and bilked of their money. Children bought trash - mostly entertainment in one form or another, playthings for which their parents and mature people would never have traded their sweat, blood, and tears.

Worse, perhaps, money is power in the Land of the Fee, and the further result of children with money was empowerment of a corporate structure already busily engaged in seizing control of the nation's power structure. It's hard to believe that the congruency of the graphs delineating the increase in political power of the nation's children and that of the military industrial complex corporations is mere co-incidence. Giving children money in the proportions they are given money today is tantamount to suffrage. Do you really wonder why the nation behaves like a spoiled child?

Neither can there be any doubt concerning empowerment of the female and its contribution to the nation's demise. With children turning socially and societally insignificant persons like Britney Spears and entertainers generally into demigods, we have seen concomitantly the rise of the female. Is there any wonder that the United States has become increasingly to behave like a woman experiencing PMS (you ARE aware that women do not behave like men, and that women - especially when under stress - behave in a manner entirely different than men, are you not?)? Just for instance, consider the "Missing Woman of the Week" news media syndrome we are inflicted with continually by a media now forced by massive political and economic pressures to appeal and kowtow to society's distaff side. What resembles more the United States today - having to do with Iraq, for instance - than the mindlessly indoctrinated and willful female who goes obliviously and effectively defenseless - made so by her own, ideological self-deception - out into the predator-replete streets and world, to blunder into abuse, injury, and humiliation? Have we not done the same in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere of late?

Tell me you believe that in the face of problems like those faced by this country, a national media un-affected by feminine interests would prioritize equally Britney Spears' troubles and those of the nation - illegal immigration, for instance. Tell me that you believe MEN are sufficiently interested in the nonsense of the tabloids to justify their publication. Watch today's news and tell me, if you can, that devoid of the need to appeal to a female audience, we would have television in the absurd, pointless, and meaningless state it is found today. I am reminded of how representatives of Ted Turner and CNN advised a National Judo Association delegation that should they televise judo or wrestling competition in the Goodwill Games of Olympics, they would lose the woman's audience. So, just like the ridiculous Title Nine (it is demanded that we pretend women like the same sports as men) sealed the fate of true sports like wrestling, baseball, men's swimming and diving and more for many colleges, things like dance while swinging a ribbon and synchronized swimming were televised.

It will be difficult for historians to believe that the rise of militant feminism, together with the virtual abandonment of children that it engendered (in fact, demanded - abortion wasn't the only war being waged by the female against children, especially male children), was not orchestrated. Aside from obvious physical differences (even those some feminists refused to concede - even demanding that women have the "right" to engage in war-fighting and combat), the feminists said, men and women are the same. Worse, the claptrap swiftly became sanctified by the law of the land, and a nightmare ensued - the one we're living.

The fact thundered by history, a fact, now being demonstrated continually by science, is that men and women are different in many, many ways. To make even a reasonable complete list would require volumes, so I search for elucidative examples in everyday experience. Try, for instance, to tell yourself that were the nation to undergo total loss of our energy-dependent infrastructure and technology, or were it to undergo a total or near total economic collapse, or the horrendous destruction Europe and Germany experienced during World War Two, that feminism would continue to exert the political and societal influence it does today. Imagine, for further instance, that terrorists would succeed detonating a nuclear device in one of our cities; imagine how the urge to survive would re-arrange gender roles. Take a group of men and women on a hiking and survival training expedition into the mountains (as I earned a part-time living doing during my war with IRS) sometime and observe what happens.

Gender and sex equality is nonsense, nonsense sociologically equivalent to insanity, and we are paying a heavy price for it. Again, one is swamped with proof of the contention, but the observable, statistical fact that the great percentage of women are humanist and liberal in their political leanings now means months, even years of dithering discussion are required concerning every national issue; in fact, to a large degree we are now even forbidden to discuss many matters - it's politically incorrect - or we are unable to even learn of them - the media must tell us about the latest missing female and fill half of daily programming with emotional claptrap satisfying to the female audience.

I am reminded of syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd's September, 2000 column concerning the Sydney, Australia Olympic Games. In the article republished January 8, 2008 by the New York Times and titled "Liberties; Cuddle Us, or Else!" Dowd observed, "I feel a certain undeniable pride that women have taken control of the two great male preserves of America -- politics and sports -- and ruined them."

"We finally quit fretting about piddly all-male bastions like the Century Club and the Senate," Dowd continued, "and started tearing down the very pillars of masculinity. We are shaping the Olympics and the presidential race -- and now we are even redecorating the steakhouses, with silk and velvet and pink light bulbs.

"We have draped the gray steel of our leading warrior rituals in yards and yards of chintz. We have made them so mawkish, so hideously fluffy, so sentimental, kissy and fraught with personal travail, that these gladiatorial contests play more like those old Bette Davis/Joan Crawford weepies.

"This used to be guy season. Aggressive, muscular warfare focused on winning and losing, stats, handicapping, training, strategy and impenetrable debates on the modernization of the land-based leg of the nuclear triad.

"Now it's girl season, soaking in sentiment, soap opera, romantic walks along the lake, long, deep kisses on stage and guys making Cher-like hair and wardrobe changes.

"The pols and TV execs have decided that what women want is to be cuddled."

Does anybody sane - unaffected by Operation MOCKINGBIRD and federal propaganda, that is - fail to see the same in everything the nation now does? Concluding her essay columnist Dowd wrote: "Alan Dundes, a folklorist and professor of anthropology at Berkeley, has written that through history the essential theme of all competitions has been this: 'One male demonstrates his virility, his masculinity, at the expense of a male opponent. One proves one's maleness by feminizing one's opponent.' Now, to win, men have to feminize themselves. Game over."

Well, where the nation is concerned not quite. But it won't be long now. In its Chinese Water Torture (no not "Waterboarding" - that's different) fashion, the media repeated its "fingernails-scraping-on-a-blackboard," over and over an over, story of Hillary Clinton's "emotion." Aaaaaargh!!!!! What did that "cute," Internet missive of some time ago, the supposed Men's Manifesto, say? "Crying is blackmail?"

Well, Maureen Dowd, it's even worse than you portrayed it. We're in another kind of Olympics, another time that used to be "guy season." It's so bad we might even have a president concerning which all the ladies approve: one who cries. And consider what it all means: it means we have given real power - the power to make kings and queens - to our children, and we have empowered the woman to such a degree that we stand as a nation before the world in the personality of a woman. We may very well be led - another word with those "abortion," "male chauvinist," "issues" meanings - by a women. Our terrorist enemy is Islanic, a religion that holds a woman in about the same esteem as a dog (that was perhaps blasphemy - maybe the Allah, and Islam, holds the canine in higher esteem; sorry). More, we are ruled by a government controlled by mega-corporations, colossal entities who profit enormously by war and whose morality is determined by amount of profit.

We have been ruled by those same corporations since the nineteen sixties. I hold - because the good detective knows that when only one of his investigations principals has the power to do whatever it was that occurred, he is the only reasonable suspect - those corporations have orchestrated (the favorite expression of Frank G. Wisner, Operation MOCKINGBIRD's creator) it all. As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

Look around. What do you think has happened, and is happening. You know how capitalism works (they trumpet to the skies their world view and their moral code). Any idea what's coming?

P.S., Wednesday, January 9, 2008: Last night, the New Hampshire primaries, a thunderous indication of where we are headed - and a vindication for what I said here yesterday. With Hillary Clinton trailing badly in all the polls, and right up to the elections in dire straits, she cried on nationwide television. Oh, she said, if the nation only knew how much she cared. Suddenly, and unexpected turnout rush of women went to the polls . . . and we all know the rest. Welcome to government by emotion over reason, folks - I hope you like it (and maybe you should read my comment on my Tagworld page concerning leaders willing to cry).