US FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE IGNORANT

(And Republican Warmongers)

Many, many, years ago our founders warned us of the dangers of maintaining a “standing army” and how that would hinder our pursuit of Liberty.

“In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans, it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Madison pretty well described where we are today in a nutshell; we certainly have the “constant apprehension of war” promoted by the media and most government employees. To believe we do not have an overgrown Executive is to border on insanity for has the Congress not relinquished their power to declare war to the executive branch and most “conservatives” defend their right to do so much more than they defend their own rights. Madison warned a standing army and an overgrown executive are not “safe companions to Liberty.” Need I say more than the Patriot Act or The National Defense Authorization Act?

Are we not pelted daily with claims of foreign dangers by those same forces: government employees and the media, and have they not become the instruments of tyranny here at home? Republicans finally got an “in your face” dose of this in the 2016 election cycle.

What about the Roman maxim of exciting a war anytime there exists a threat of a revolution among the people? Would one be out of line to mention the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11? Did they both not excite war among the people and justify the existence of both a standing army and a more powerful executive branch?

Prior to WWII, America indeed did not have an organized armament industry as was stated by President Eisenhower in 1960. We also did not have the National Security Act and all of its attendant federal bureaucracies prior to 1947. In what could be considered President Eisenhower’s farewell address, he warned us of just such a combination of powers. He referred to them as the military/industrial complex. In all candor, he should have called them the military/industrial/banking complex.

Eisenhower said,

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Unfortunately, another warning that has been ignored to the detriment of freedom and Liberty.

Were we warned even earlier than the warning from Eisenhower and after the warning from Madison? We certainly were. Writing in the early 20th Century, even before the winds of war in Europe that became WWI, a man by the name of Randolph Bourne admonished the people that war was indeed “The Health of the State.” What Bourne outlined so well was how the government (state) derives powers taken from the people and how government grows beyond its constitutional boundaries, with the people’s blessings, all the while little realizing they are endorsing their own slavery to the forces of government. Read for yourself if anything Bourne wrote has relevance in our world today, all these 99 years later?

“Government is obviously composed of common and unsanctified men, and is thus a legitimate object of criticism and even contempt. If your own party is in power, things may be assumed to be moving safely enough; but if the opposition is in, then clearly all safety and honor have fled the State… The republican State has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions. What it has are of military origin, and in an unmilitary era such as we have passed through since the Civil War, even military trappings have been scarcely seen. In such an era the sense of the State almost fades out of the consciousness of men… With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle… The moment war is declared, however, the mass of the people, through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they have willed and executed the deed themselves. They then, with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives, and turned into a solid manufactory of destruction toward whatever other people may have, in the appointed scheme of things, come within the range of the Government’s disapprobation. The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to Government, identifies himself with its purposes, revives all his military memories and symbols, and the State once more walks, an august presence, through the imaginations of men. Patriotism becomes the dominant feeling, and produces immediately that intense and hopeless confusion between the relations which the individual bears and should bear toward the society of which he is a part… The patriot loses all sense of the distinction between State, nation, and government.”

Time and space prevent me from including more of Randolph Bourne’s brilliance, but readers may access the entirety of his work at their leisure.

Then, in 1935, a genuine military hero, a two-time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, provided us with the wisdom of his 30 plus years of service in the United States Marine Corps. Major General Smedley Butler revealed that indeed not only was “war” the “health of the state” but it was also a “racket.” Butler told us,

“WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives… In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War[I]. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?… And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

So, there we have it; from two former presidents; one a founder and the other a military leader of the free world. We also have the words of a philosopher and the words of a genuine, highly decorated war hero. But, we still continue on the path of destruction. We embrace American exceptionalism where we readily accept the insane belief that if another country does something it is wrong, but if our country does the exact same thing it is permissible and acceptable.

We have lost our collective minds, we embrace our government which tyrannizes other countries and ignore the fact we are victims of tyranny by that same government. We can’t understand why other countries fear the same government we fear here at home and wish to defend themselves from it.

to be continued…

 

 

 

TORT REFORM AND THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC

CHAPTER ONE

The synthetic solution to these conflicts can’t be introduced unless those being manipulated take a side which will advance the predetermined agenda.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Last Thursday evening as I watched and listened to a public forum in which five elected representatives of the people offered their views on the recently adjourned session of the legislature in the state of Arkansas, it dawned on me, especially in one particular instance, what I was indeed witnessing was a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic in full blossom when the subject of the meeting rolled around to Tort Reform.

Obviously, the legislature, in particular, the Senate, has determined that there is a problem, that only the legislature could fix by proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the state of Arkansas. The question that must be answered is this: does this problem in fact exist or is it a synthetic problem as mentioned by Hegel above? In other words, where is the outcry from the people themselves that demands from the legislature a remedy to cure the alleged political disease?

While not one person in the assembly that night mentioned any specific reality that would require the amending of the Constitution, an Arkansas state Senator stated, “books have been written about this problem” although he too could not cite any specific case in which to support his allegation. One would think if there are so many instances of the problem existing that books have been written about it, he could have quoted at least one.

Absent any real public demand for a solution to the alleged problem there must be another motivating factor which is driving this particular legislation, that, if approved, will diminish the individual and constitutional rights of the people themselves. If the people are not the driving force behind any issue, then, the only inescapable answer would be the issue is being driven by special interests and their money. One does not have to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to comprehend the fact politicians profit in many ways when they promote the agenda of special interests instead of the rights of the people. The examples are prolific in number.

According to Hegel, the synthetic solution to an issue advocated by special interests and their political puppets cannot be advanced until the targeted group (individual voters) are convinced there is a problem that exists which requires the forfeiture of inalienable individual rights and the only way it can be solved is with further government intervention into the affairs of the people.

The preferred language of the special interest-inspired and motivated politician when it comes to the issue of Tort Reform is “frivolous lawsuit.” Yet, when challenged to produce just one such case, this proponent of an attack on the guarantees provided in the US Bill of Rights and the Arkansas Declaration of Rights could not produce an example. But, this legislator did become agitated when pressed to provide such an example and began to talk down to his constituent who posed the question. When a legislator, at any level, cannot provide a single example of a wrong which he/she claims exists and must be dealt with by surrendering constitutional rights, should we not all question if there is, in fact, a real problem?

Many in the past have pointed to the case of the elderly lady who spilled McDonald’s hot coffee on her lap and subsequently sued McDonalds when they refused requests to pay her medical bills. To coin an old phrase, anyone who is critical of this settlement and has become a victim of the propaganda and deceit of the media and assorted politicians really needs to hear the “rest of the story.” This can be found in the video presentation called “Hot Coffee.” The free trailer to this must watch video can be found here. The complete video will cost you $2.99. If you feel your inalienable rights are not worth 3 dollars and an hour of your time, you should not be voting.

As stated above the inflammatory keyword which political proponents of the relinquishing of our rights demanded by our founders and expressly declared in our Bills and Declaration of Rights is, “frivolous lawsuits.” They propose a synthetic solution to a problem of their own creation in which the power of the people, operating in their sovereign duty as a member of a jury, is to be relinquished to the legislative and judicial branches of government. What they dare not tell you is that solution already exists within the judicial branch of Arkansas known as “Rule 11,” which is stated thusly:

“(b) The Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals shall impose a sanction upon a party or attorney or both for

(l) taking or continuing a frivolous appeal or initiating a frivolous proceeding, …” (Emphasis added) Notice please the wording, “shall impose” not can or will. This indicates sanctions against those who file a frivolous lawsuit are mandatory and not subject to discretion.

So, if there already exists a legal remedy for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit, why then are legislators, lobbyists and special interests advocating for an amendment to the Constitution and Declaration of Rights which would limit the rights of the people? I am sure the answer to this is money, for nothing else makes any sense at all. The money lost would be by the people while the money gained would go to the big businesses (special interests) in the state. This would certainly explain why a synthetic problem has been presented to the people in order that a synthetic solution can be obtained which requires the masses be duped into voting away their inalienable rights.

Also at this public gathering on April 13 was a member of the Arkansas House who stated the following: “Tort Reform was passed previously by the legislature but it has been incrementally struck down by the Supreme Court.” So, to take his statement to the lowest level of understanding: Tort Reform was passed in previous legislation but was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so we are bypassing the courts and trying again to convince the people to vote away their rights themselves, believing by doing so they are fixing a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Hegel lives!!

Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated the people themselves are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional and they are to exercise that power through their sovereign duty as jurors. What Tort Reform (SJR8) proposes in Arkansas is to take this sovereign duty away from the people and place it in the hands of the government. Never, ever, in the history of this world has the relinquishing of individual rights to the powers of government ever promoted the cause of Liberty and the sacred rights of man.

Again, to break this issue down to the most basic level and to understand how the Hegelian Dialectic is busy at work in Arkansas is relatively easy: Big business and their lobbyists seeking to avoid financial responsibility to those who depend on them for their health, safety and welfare, and pay dearly for it, having been duly reprimanded by previous jurors for their negligence in the care of others have sought a political remedy by promoting legislation which limits their financial liabilities in each case. To accomplish this goal, the people must be convinced that there is a problem (synthetic) which does not really exist. In fact, there is a remedy already in place for this completely concocted boogeyman. (Rule 11)

In this endeavor, the legislators who support this intrusion on the rights of the people they are elected to represent, must, by default, place the desires of big business and special interests above the rights of the people. They believe they can salve their collective conscience if they convince the people to do it to themselves. Such politicians will never truly pursue the interests of the people over the rights of special interests and should be treated accordingly come election day.

“All the worth which the human beings possesses, all the spiritual reality, he possesses only through the state…” ~ Hegel

To be continued…

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY