June 7, 2007
by John Sebastian

Our elected officials have decided we are not to know the truth about how they are conducting our business. They are selectively censoring what we know about their conduct.  We don't know what they are not telling us - and that suits them fine.

For the record:  We know oil is running out, and we know what the end of oil is going to do to the world. The world will be different.  We are used to 'different'; that's what humans have always done to survive - especially those of us who work with both our hands and our heads to make this world work.  We built this world.  We keep it running for you.  We have learned to expect change.  We adjust to it.

Maybe the end of oil is nature's way of protecting itself from the ignorance of man - and coal is not the solution - unless it is "scrubbed clean".  But this will require an investment in the future rather than in shareholders' portfolios.  Tough call, but no one affected by this fund transfer would be driven into the poor house by choosing to invest some of their discretionary financial resources in the future health and welfare of our country - and for our posterity. Whether or not people accept this responsibility is a personal choice.  We all have justified reasons for what we do.

Scholars around the world have been telling us for the past forty years that some day the oil is going to run out.  Okay, it's getting closer.  But we have had time to plan.  What are our options?  What are your plans for addressing our predicted and solvable energy-abuse problem?  We are all energy junkies.  How about a war on 'Energy and Environment Abusers'?  We have so many wars going on right now, who'd notice one more?  We could have another war czar; the 'EEA War Czar'.

And, don't tell us the answer is to kill a bunch of defenseless people and steal their oil in our name. If this is the case, then in future years, you will be setting our sights on the people in coal-rich countries.  And when the coal is gone, then what? 

Killing people is wrong.  You gave your authorization for the human harvest occurring in the killing fields of Iraq.  You allowed this killing to begin.  You are allowing it to continue.  We disagree with the compromise you have made with your conscience. What else do you have in mind?

And don't tell us you must approach your counterparts in the minority party in the spirit of 'comity' because you respect the rights of the minority party. And that because of this you can't make and stand by decisions we all know are best for our country.

So you compromise on plans that you know will not solve our problems; feigning to your constituencies reluctant acceptance of the compromise on the plan as the best you could do 'in the spirit of comity' - all the while knowing nothing would change.  But this is what you intended: stasis.

For you and your colleagues in the minority party are both in the same party - The Republocratic Party.  And for you, comity is not the gracious act of getting along with your colleagues because you respect the rights of the minority.  It is a collusive act among you and your colleagues to maintain your positions, and to hold onto your seats; or cover them, as the case may be.

It makes no difference which Party is in the majority or the minority, because you all belong to the same one; you are all Republocrats.  There cannot be a minority party when only one party is involved - your deference to one another is an act where you, the actors, exchange roles every election cycle.  But you all perpetually adhere to the same script, entitled, "Don't rock the boat".  So don't tell us you can't agree on anything.

And don't tell us that all that money you get from lobbyists doesn't change your mind and sway your vote because that is the primary purpose of lobbyists. They don't get paid until you get paid off.  Haven't you found it curious that there is always a longer line of lobbyists waiting to see you when you are in the majority?  They're always hedging their bets; and for them it is little more than a game at the hottest table in town - and we know you know they stack the deck.  Their job is to maximize the bottom lines of the shareholders' portfolios of the companies they represent.  Did you think theirs were courtesy calls?

"Major Campaign Contributor" is an alias for 'lobbyist'.

And don't tell us you can't change the lobbying laws - because you can - but you don't want to.  Whether you are from the conservative camp or the liberal camp of the Republocratic Party, you are going to fight against lobbying restrictions when you are in one camp; and you are going to fight for lobbying restrictions when you are in the other camp, both knowing full well that you won't have enough votes in either case to pass any real changes.  Reaching a consensus seems to be a selective process for you.

But it plays well in the tabloids.  There is always one side stepping up to each side of the plate regardless of who is in the majority or the minority - and so nothing changes - by choice.  Switch hitters hitting foul balls - nice work if you can afford it.

And as long as you both agree not to pass public financing of Federal Elections, you can keep anyone with less money than those who benefitted from the Republocratic-supported tax give-away from making a serious bid for your seats of power.  And in this regard, there is no conflict arising from the separations of power among those seeking elected office in all branches of our government.  Those who have, get.  Stasis equals job security.

And don't tell us that the new federal project in your district is what our nation needs most right now.  We know you know it is self-serving.

Don't tell us you care about Education, or the Kids, or the Needy, or the Elderly, or the Veterans. Because you don't.

We don't need a Third Party.  We need two different parties.  Names separate parties, ideas separate ideology.  There is no debate when like-minded ideologues debate the same idea - you call it compromise when it is nothing more than callous collusion.

And don't tell us we need a 30-billion-dollar-a-year Missile Defense System dreamed up by a "B-rated" movie actor who saw a movie and thought it would be a good idea.  A perfect example of multi-media's effect on the mind of a nimble thinker.

Don't tell us that you need to spend more of our tax money for a system whose recent test flight failed because the 'target drone' couldn't find its way from Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska to where it was supposed to get blown up.

Don't tell us that, "The target did not reach sufficient altitude to be deemed a threat, and so the Ballistic Missile Defense System [standing by at the Ronald W. Reagan Missile Defense Site, located in Vandenburg Air Force Base, California] did not engage it, as designed"; and so it did not launched.

Don't tell us that you have "initiated a 'target' modernization program, within [your] existing budget, which should mitigate [the misfire of the drones] in the future".  Or that "A target will be brought forward from a test schedule for next fall and we will attempt to repeat this test this summer."(sic)

After thirty years of trying to justify this WMD delivery system, our war department can't even build the targets right.  They haven't figured out how to test it yet - let alone deploy it.  It is time you question who is benefiting from this trillion-dollar inoperative system - our country or the contractor's with the perpetual contracts for it. 

And, now you're going to appropriate funds for the construction of ten interceptor missile systems in Poland, and a radar tracking system in the Czech Republic, with the stated justification being 'an effort to stop nuclear proliferation'.  This makes no sense.  The Russian's have several thousand nuclear WMD's, and they have just recently tested a new multiple warhead intercontinental ballistic missile system - a 'new' one.

So for the Honorable Senators who visited with members of the Federation Council of Russia in Moscow over their Memorial Day break to convince them our intentions are not hostile - do you believe that if Russia ever launched an offensive nuclear attack on Europe or America, that they would not launch two or three times more offensive ICBM's than the number of defensive missiles that you or Europe can build in the foreseeable future.  This sounds like another one of those open-ended military weapons proliferation contracts that your constituents so desperately need to protect them from an enemy you perceive, and say you fear. 

(Article Continues Below)

If Russia is ever sanctioned into a corner like what was done to Iraq throughout the '90's, and to Germany and Japan in the '30's - well you just can't know what to expect.  If pushed into a first strike position, there will be no chance or need for a second strike. Every city on all sides with populations of 100,000 or more is targeted.  There will be nothing left worth striking.  The lands will become uninhabitable.  There is no such thing as "Tactical Nuclear War" - unless the tactic is not to have it, but prepare for it anyway. 

If nuclear war happens - neither We nor Europe nor whoever else has their nuclear WMD's ready to launch, will pass up this once in a lifetime chance to shoot em' off. Our missiles will pass theirs going in opposite directions, and we will all be toast. 

China and India will probably be smart enough to stay out of this clash of uncivilized nations.  To the victorious pacifists will go the spoils of our stupidity?  Iran is just sitting by laughing at us while their President tries to piss us off by hurling verbal cherry bombs - and you're biting - or at least you act like you are.  They don't have any nukes. They don't want them.  Nobody in their right mind wants nukes.  Where does this leave you?

So tell us, Senators Lott, R and Nelson, D, the bipartisan war-mongering team from the Republocratic Party - who are you carrying the water for?  Is it your constituents back home, or the ICBM-WMD offensive and defensive weapons contractors?  Or are the contractors your main constituents?  Nice 'kick-off-the-summer-session' junket.  Who paid for the plane tickets?

It is strange that a bipartisan delegation of House members was recently chided for talking about peace initiatives with the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Syria - but you feel there is no problem with a bipartisan pair of Senators making preparations for war with our comrades in Europe against some "undeclared enemy".  Some people would find this hypocritical.  It would be interesting to know your reasons.

It is doubtful that our ICBM program has either the nuclear or non-nuclear countries shakin' in their boots.  There will always be saber rattling from those who fear their own nightmares.  They are no more than strutting cocks - spoiling for a fight but never willing to do the fighting.  It makes good press because fear mongering is a marketable commodity; and chickenhawks are the pushers.  

'MAD' is still at work.  Let it.  And take the toys away from the chickenhawks before they break anything else.  "Power of the Purse" - remember?

Since the Berlin Wall fell, who has been spending our country into the poor house by wasting an ever-increasing percentage of our discretionary income tax revenue on weapons of mass destruction?  You, Congressman.  Have you ever seen a "Carrier Battle Group" or an "AC-130 Gunship" in action?  Now these are weapons of mass destruction.  Lead bullets and dumb bombs have killed more people that nukes ever will.  But depleted uranium is jockeying for position; and it kills slowly - and hangs around for awhile.  So holds on to your tickets until this deadly weapons race is over.  It is taking a little longer than expected.  The tides of war are fickle, and war requires a significant investment of taxpayer revenue.  Follow the money and keep your eyes on your campaign-war-chest's bottom lines.  Because you can't play if you can't pay to.

And what brainwashed bigot is going to push "The Button" in the name of "National Security" or "National Offense?  Depending on how things turn out, you can give him either "The Medal of Freedom" or a pink slip.  Never mind any apologies or prosecutions. "Damn the torpedoes..." - let's go to war; just like in the movies; pass the popcorn; yee haw.

Nukes are not defensive weapons.  If they are ever used, the lucky people will be at ground zero.  You can't stop 'stupid'; but you can try to talk to people you disagree with before 'stupid' happens - unless you're too stupid to.  There is always common ground. Where does this leave you?

Speaking of stupid - about that Lieutenant General at the Missile Defense Agency who apologized for the "misfire".

You may want to check him out.  He might be sending coded messages to the terrorists by publicly announcing that our trillion dollar "Star Wars" toy can't shoot down cruise missiles because they "[don't] reach sufficient altitude to be deemed a threat".  You just can't be too careful.

Because if I was some crazy terrorist sitting around with a few million dollars to spend, and I wanted to destroy the United States of America and kill Americans because "I hated their freedoms", I could use that information to further my cause. 

While I couldn't afford an intercontinental ballistic missile offense system - I'll let those countries that can afford to, waste their money chasing that demon - I might be able to scratch up enough for a couple of cruise missiles.  Or maybe a few torpedoes.  I could rig 'em up on my yacht to launch them.  All I would need then is the nuclear material and a way to mount it - and a firing mechanism - and a guidance system - and - oh, the heck with it. 

I can just sit back and watch Americans suffocate under the weight of their own ignorance and poverty of conscience.  But I won't tell them I really don't hate them - at least not for their "freedoms".

And don't tell us that none of you signed off on the appropriation bills for these offensive WMD programs or their defensive counterparts since they were started in the '40's; because if it wasn't you, it must have been those Republocrats.

How about mitigating the whole Missile Offense/Defense program, and give all the money saved to local school boards around the country - no strings attached - because you don't know squat about the process of local public education either - and the State Boards are not far in front of you.  No Child Left Behind is worth less than nothing.  But the "Testing Companies" love it - it's good to know that someone's condition is improving from this tax-supported program.

Whether intentionally or not, NCLB is systematically destroying the process of public education in our country.  But like all of the bills and authorizations you sign, you read and studied the NCLB bill first - right?  You know how the program works, and agree it deserves your continued financial backing with our tax receipts - right?  Then be sure to sign the next NCLB appropriation bill so you can perpetuate the continuing cycle of ignorance of the American people through the public education system.  Uneducated people are more easily manipulated.  Remember - stasis is good.

Fortunately, we have clear choices from both branches of the Republocratic Party now running for President. Both have shown an understanding of, and respect for individual rights and responsibilities.  They also have a deep respect for and understanding of the U.S. Constitution.  Those who criticize the Constitution exhibit ignorance of history and "The Law of Nations".

This is - a government of, by, and for the People - but only if the People understand and accept this responsibility - and act.  Don't blame the Constitution when it is the lazy approach to its study and application by our Congress that is at fault; this has placed us where we are today.  The authors of our Constitution foresaw, and included the solution for our current political problem in the Constitution - but It cannot act - and Congress lacks the will.  What happens now?

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

     click here

John Sebastian [send him email] is a freelance writer and Constitutionalist.