You got commentators like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Alan Colmes delivering comedy from the "Liberal" left of the stage.
From the right of the stage are budding "CON-servative" comedians like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.
John Stossel and Judge (Andrew) Napolitanio are the center stage comedians, or middle ring set of political commentary clowns. Glenn Beck is back stage, or in the senile stage, I haven't figured him out yet.
It all makes for great entertainment listening to all the jokers try to convince their viewers that their shows have the facts and the political opposition shows don't. Actually it would all be funny if the issues they toy with weren't so serious
The fact is they all are wrong, at least in principle. All of them claim to be fighting to expose the propaganda of the other two opposing political parties agendas. In this 3-way free-for-all something gets mangled in the pundit play-fighting. That something is your and my Freedom.
While these clowns think political gaming is some form of entertainment We the People are less and less finding their foolish talk amusing. Nero fiddled while Rome burnt and political commentators giggle while America burns.
The Republican commentators talk about American needing to "return to conservative values and Constitutional political principles".
Democratic commentators talk about "progressive ideas" and enigmatic "social programs".
Libertarian commentators talk about "returning to and sticking to Constitutional restrictions on the Government". All the "experts" these commentators have on their shows as guests only serve as props in their comedy routines.
With the cacophony of chaotic chatter, that the cable political commentary shows emit into American's homes everyday, it is no wonder the average American is politically frustrated.
Talk radio shows are no better than the ones that can be seen as well as heard.
There are call-screeners that screen the callers, and the contexts of their calls, to protect the radio host from being embarrassed. This is done to keep the caller from bringing some aspect or fact of a topic up on-air that might prove the host to be incorrect in stance. The radio host also has a "dump-button", which basically is a panic-button, to hang up on a caller that challenges the almighty host to a dual of facts. Network and radio political commentary show hosts all think they have their jobs due to their intelligence. Sadly their fan bases also think this of their favorite political commentators. It is more like they have their shows and media contracts not due to their intelligence, but their egos and arrogance.
Their big egos and charisma is entertainment value and valuable to radio and television executives.
What? You think your favorite political talk show host or news commentator got their show or contract due to their honest knowledge about politics and law making? Do you honestly think they got their job running their mouths about politics because they are honest and will dare to tell the real facts, instead of what their broadcasting corporation wants them to say? Yea, I'm pointing out the elephant standing in the room.
Let me break this down so you can have a better understanding of politics, and of government, then perhaps you will see why corporate media commentary show hosts only add to the average American's political confusion.
Politics is about only two things: 1) who is gonna get to make the laws 2) what is made into a law or policy.
Government is also only about two things 1)enforcing and protecting the laws that already exist 3) seeking more laws for it's benefit.
Understand that politics is not a bad thing in itself. Discussing community policy, or laws to be enacted or that are already in effect, is a social dynamic of which makes up a civilized society termed "civilization". When I refer to corporate Government Politics I use a large case "P", and when I am referring to organic politics I use a small letter "p".
When I am referring in my writings to corporate and professional Government I use a large "G". When I am speaking of organic governments that are not run by professional Politicians I is use a small "g". Naturally occurring government (note the small "g") is not a bad thing, but a good and natural expression of civilizations that are based on Common Law Principles. In a healthy society that is so based, everyone has a voice, yet retains their individual Natural Rights. A civilized society is populated by individuals that make up community that is truly representative of the phrase "We the People". That often touted phrase also appears in the Federal Constitution, but does that particular siting of the phrase really refer to a collective of individuals, or to a corporate business body? I leave that to the reader of this article to decide that one on their own.
Professional, that is paid, "Political Leaders" are members of a corporation and corporate body known as a State, or Government. These individuals are known a "Politicians" and when I refer to them I use the capital "P". Thus in a professional corporate body, the Government/State, through it's professional Politicians law and policy is made. There is nothing wrong with Law, if it is based on Common Law a given culture and it's people universally agree on. Please also note that I use a capital "C" and "L" when referring to "Common Law" to recognize it as a Lawful practice. I also use a capital "L" when speaking of "Laws" I believe to be legitimate and a lower case "l" when speaking of "laws" made by a corporate State. The reader must also understand that their is a difference in true Law Principle between "legal" and "Lawful". Something may be "legal" but not "Lawful". For a legislative act to become "legal" it must be "legally correct", which simply means it conforms to the definition of what is "legal" according to the State Government's corporate Policy.
A corporate Government's "law" maybe in compliance with corporate Policy but it may not necessarily be in line and "Lawful" according to Common Law of that particular culture and people.
Common Law is basically unwritten Law and is generally, and almost instinctively known and understood by a people. There is a reason for the term "Common Law Tradition". A particular style of Common Law is only native to that particular people and their cultural and social traditions. America, as a country, was founded and first populated in the 1600's by a people from Western Europe and they culturally carried with them Western European Common Law Principles. I freely admit that some of those European Common Law Principles were partly behind the written document know as the u.S.Constitution. The complete fact is the Federal Constitution was (and is) a Corporate Law document and therefore nothing but a Corporate Charter that established a corporate business and was not (isn't) a true Common Law civil rights document.
Politics, of the corporate kind, is complicated due to two things 1) the political campaigning of individuals running for office and their hyperbole during those campaigns 2) political wrangling by elected politicians over what should and shouldn't be a law.
Government, on the other hand, only concerns itself with protecting legislation that has already been made into laws. Government is a corporation that seeks only to maintain it's progressively gained legal power. This is the nature of the beastly creature we call "Government" and label the "State". Government never relinquishes power, nor does the State ever stop attempting to gain more. Government is not something to play with, it is force, plain and simple. Politics only concerns itself with the making of politicians and the making of laws. The dirty little secret political commentators never reveal is Politics does NOT run, or control, Government!
Understanding the truth concerning the very nature of corporate Government Politics will lead you to see that Politics and Government are not the same thing. Politics, explained another way, is the feed of the creature-monster we term Government, or the State. When this is understood by a person then it is not hard for that person to see the "man behind the curtain" . The "curtain" being Politics, and the "man", or "men", behind it being the politician(s). The Government State (the land of "Oz") is a corporation manned by men/women (Politicians) hiding behind that "curtain" of Politics.
What political commentary t.v. and radio show hosts do is help to keep We the People focused on the "curtain" of the Government but not see the "little man" (the Politicians) behind it. All Politicians hide behind the corporate curtain of the Government State. Commentators all the talk about Politics without ever exposing the frailty behind the "curtain" -the Government's lack of Authority itself. In so doing commentators never expose the State of "Oz" for the authoritative joke it is. Sure a corporate Government State has Power and might to enFORCE it's will upon We the People, but from where does it gain it's Authority? WHO, pray tell, gave the Politicians this Authority, and thus the Government State Power? "Authority" is the Legal & Lawful Right to oversee and manage whatever one has the true Authority over. Only you have true Authority over your life and possessions. Matter-a-fact in both legal and Lawful terminology "possession" literally means having full Authority and Power over something. When you leave your home for a period and give Authority to a neighbor or loved one to oversee your house and property you have given them Authority to do so.
Power, on the other hand, is pure force and nothing less. A robber, or home-invader, can over-power you and take Power over your house and property, but they have no Authority given them by you, the owner, to do so. On the other side of this spectrum is the giving of "Power of Authority" (or "Power of Attorney") to someone over your estate and property. This type of "Power" is both Legal and Lawful. If one, who legitimately has Authority over a thing willingly gives, or shares, their Authority and Authoritative Power with another person that is perfectly Legal and Lawful to do. Not to mention practical at times.
To willingly submit Authority to another person over your life and body itself is willful submission to another human being or group of human beings. But, who in their right mind would do such a thing?!
What is important to understand and remember here is that Authority & Power must be given to another out of Free Will, and not coercion.
We hear the saying all the time, and see bumperstickers and t-shirts with it, "Question Authority", yet who really does? Instead of "questioning authority" we should first question how a given "authority" gained this "authority" in the first place. Anybody can gain Power, simply by being more physically powerful than who they have Power over. Any school-yard bully can gain Power over who he bullies, but does he have Authority to rule over his victims?
Political talk and commentary show hosts all assume that the Government has "Authority" over We the People. Along with that assumption comes the Politics of the State. Political commentators sometimes grumble about the "abusive use" of the Power of the State. So-called "Conservative" and "Libertarian" commentators are the best known for this complaining. Yet the fact remains that the Power of the Government over all of our lives grows daily. Not just the Federal Government, but the Governments of the individual states, counties and cities. The same in other countries of the world as well. In the history of States and Governments of all mankind, almost never was any Power relinquished by a Empire, Monarchy, Democracy or Republic, once it is obtained. Sure laws of a Government/State may get repealed, but soon another law is enacted somewhere to maintain the "balance of Power" the State uses in general to enFORCE it's will. A step may be taken back by a given Government, but always two or three steps are taken forward to maintain, and to gain, Power. If a Government regime of a people falls or withers away another one arises to take it's place.
Political pundits and commentators don't want their Governments to loose Power, not even the most "Libertarian" of them. They simply want to dictate how that Power is wielded by the State. This desire is manifested in the Game of Politics they play in front of their viewers and listeners. Not only would these commentators have to find real jobs if the Government died and Political Games ceased, they would have to concede that every citizen is a governor of their lives and their communities. Put in monarchical terms, every person is a "king", and thus recognized as such. To be blunt, you, and only you, have Authority over you.
What those clowns fail to either recognize, or don't want their fans to realize, is that all the talk of "Governmental Politics" does not change anything for the positive. In fact Government ultimately is concerned with it's own well-being and existence, not the citizens under it's Power. The Government State is a beast that gives not one wit what We the People desire, but only what it hungers for, which is Power.
Now I realize that many who read this article may think I am ignoring that America is a "Democratic Republic" and that allegedly We the People do have a king-like voice through voting and the ballot machine/box. But the fact is voters may be able to vote what man or women (Politician) they want behind the "curtain" but what is the "curtain"? Again, the "curtain" is the State, the corporate Government. The reader may ask of this writer "what about when we can vote on issues and referendums?" The answer to that question can be found in the history of such topic based voting. Ultimately it is up to the Politicians that run a Government State entity as to whether a given "voter approved" proposal is actually made into a law.
It also may be countered by a reader that "in a Representative Republic the voters choose who they wish to 'represent' them". This kind of thinking is behind the premise that such elections of Politicians therefore gives them legal "Authority" to wield Political Power. There are a couple big things wrong with such a way of thinking. First what about those who voted for a person who was campaigning opposite of that person that won the election? What about those who can not vote (such as convicted felons), or simply chose to abstain from voting? Aren't they human beings as well? Yet the "losers" who did not vote for the winning candidate are subject to the legislative decisions of the newly elected (or re-elected) Politician. The losing voters, non-voters and, those who actually voted for the Politician in question, except that that Politician's seat and position in the Government State has Authority over their lives. The same goes for legislation that is supposedly left to the voters to vote on that becomes law, whether the voters wanted to or not. The second thing wrong with the thinking that Politicians have Lawful Authority, even over those who did not want a particular politician in office, or law passed, is that voting is not truly "representative" of individual citizens. To be more clear about this point, voting is simply "Mob Rule". Sure voting is citizen run "Majority Rule", but is it truly "representative" of a nation of people that claims to be all about "Individual Liberties"? No, voting does not protect the individual, it only protects the group majority, the group being the mob with the superior number of voters.
All this talk about voting does not take away from the fact that voting, even if 100% of a State's subjects voted for something or someone, really does not control the corporate Government/State. This very important fact concerning the very nature of the Beast (Government) is never directly dealt with by corporate media commentators. Sure many will make statements on their shows about how "big" government has gotten, or how some "oppressive" law needs repealing, but none dare deal with what I term "The Oz Factor".
The Oz Factor is the fact that the corporate Government State is but a facade.
The more "Conservative" and "Libertarian" commentators will constantly question what is "Constitutional" or what is "Unconstitutional" when discussing proposed legislation. Yet no one ever asks the real question and that is who signed the Constitution? You see the Federal Constitution is a Contract. A Business Contract, not some sort of "Declaration" of a people. It is a Corporate Charter & Foundation Document. To demonstrate what I mean, the "Bill of Rights" were a after-thought. The first 10 Amendments were just that, "amendments", in other words they had to be added to the original document we know as the Constitution. That alone should demonstrate to the readers of this article where the minds were of the men who wrote up the Corporate Charter to the Federal State. The concept of the Federal Constitution was a business concept, not a concept based upon individual Liberty & Freedom. Further more it being a Contract it must be signed by all parties involved in the contractual agreement. I didn't sign it, did you? Perhaps you have taken some oath to uphold the Federal Constitution, did you actually read it and understand it's contractual terms before hand?
Now before you begin to think this writer is some sort of "traitor" to America, consider what America and it's culture was founded upon first. America was supposedly founded upon the high ideals of individual Liberty and of Freedom. This is very accurate and historically true. Colonial Era men such as Patrick Henry understood the inherit dangers of a corporate State and Governing Body. He was one true Patriot that had some misgivings about the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent Federal Constitutional document.
I'd say his misgivings were well founded, especially being a fellow Patriot myself, living in America today.
Yes, the Federal Constitutional Business Contract was simply a Corporate Charter establishing a business agreement between it and the Colonies. The Colonies each had their own Corporate Charter documents establishing their Statehoods and thus became known individually, and collectively, as "States". The thirteen original Colonies were colonies under the English Monarchy. The Colonies broke away from colonial rule of the British Crown and corporately created a federalized collective called the 'Federal Government". A business agreement was made between the former separate Colonies (that became termed "States") and a deal was reached and a contract, the Constitution, was made Policy.
In all of the setting up of the Governments of the States and of the Federal Government "Authority" over each individual was simply assumed. The "Posterity" that has since been born has been assumed to of given their Right to self-Authority to the local, State and Federal Governing corporate bodies. Is it "treason" to dare to question such assumptions of Authority over the individual?
I have heard people say "well if you don't like America, or how it's set up and ran, just leave". My response to that ignorant knee-jerk statement is this: I was born here, my ancestors lived here and this is my people's homeland (at least as early as the 1700's according to what can be found in my particular family tree).
I can't help the type ruling class that rule over me. I have not the Power to throw their boot off my neck. But if I had the Power to regain my full Liberty I would certainly not surrender it to a corporate Government business that is ran by professional Politicians.
All of what I have said here concerning the legal business corporate entity called Government is drowned out by the constant media chatter of Political commentators. My fellow Americans can not hear the sweet sound of Freedom in the wind, or the ringing of the Bell of Liberty for all the radio and tv network Political noise. Individuals have to make up their minds if they are part of the naturally organic collective of "We the People", of if they are simply part of the "We the People" spoken of in a business contract and charter.
Individuals also have to wake up from their dream states and see that the Government State bodies are but "Oz". To cause this awakening the individual must see the curtain of Politics that serves to hide the fact that Politicians only claim to have Authority over you to make things into "laws" you must obey. Keep in mind that a Politician's one and only job is to come up with, or promote, legislation that to outlaws or regulates. Not one Politician sits in office and not makes something a new law or adds to an existing one. Politician buy it's very definition and job description is "law maker". In the making of more and more laws the Politician only increases the Power of the State. Not one Politician has ever served a term and not introduced a new law, policy,or regulation, or supported another politicians legislative proposal for some new law. Politicians will appear on Political commentary shows and whine and complain about how the very Government body they are a part of is doing something they oppose. Yet, they themselves validate this Power and tyranny by being a part of a machine that no one actually wanted in their lives to begin with.
Political commentators and Political talk shows of the corporate media system help to hold up the curtain and only hold up the facade that anybody, or any corporate body called the "Government", even has the Rightful Authority over our lives. Sure, the local, State and Federal Governing bodies can, and daily do, FORCE all of use to obey their laws, but like a bully, they only have Power over us, but not Authority. Their supposed "Authority" does NOT come from your State's State Constitution or the Federal Government's Constitution, it can only come from you. An individual is not born "into" Corporate Government System, an individual is only born "under" it. Such as the children of Serfs during the reigns of Kings and Monarchs in European history. Sure children are raised to be good subjects of the king but was it their choice to live under such a Government when they became of age? Further more did they all sign contracts and surrender their individual sovereignty to one "Sovereign". If some did, was it because they were compelled to, perhaps at sword point?
Political talk show hosts never actually question the very Authority of Politicians and the Government's Authority to make laws that are in turn enFORCED upon us. I will close this article about the "curtain" of Governmental Politics and the pundits who dare not look behind it with what can only be considered a an ironical statement from a Founding Father of the American Federal State. In reading the quote below you may wonder why I suspect the motives of the one who says it. I will point out that the man that said what is quoted below was also a business man. Perhaps his motives were honest, but he is one man that should of understood that professional corporations serve only to capitalize and gain Power for themselves. He should of known that corporate business do not for good civil governments make. Corporations are not altruistic by their very nature, because the business of corporations is concerned with one thing and one thing only, Power.
- Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
No comments:
Post a Comment