Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next President of the United Fates of America
Quote:Aristocracy 2016: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton
Updated: March 16, 2015  by Winter Trabex 

In the early months of 2015, the two major American parties- Democrat and Republican- are already talking about putting forward candidates for the 2016 election. If past history is any indication, the candidate who comes to office will be markedly different than the candidate whom people thought they voted for. The prestige and power of the office of the president soon goes the head of the person who occupies it, creating tyranny where liberty was promised.

This was the case when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980. Prior to this, he appeared to be a candidate for personal liberty and fiscal responsibility. His 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater displayed the character of a man who was willing to question the war on Vietnam, a man who did not like that the US dollar kept being inflated, a man who stood on principle, one who, despite his history in the film business, nonetheless had a solid grasp on what was good for the country.

The Reagan of 1964 and the Reagan of the 1980’s were two different people. His presidency was marked by a willingness to ignore the rule of law in favor of doing whatever he pleased. In 1982, Reagan chose to support the Contras in Nicarauga against the Sandanistas. The CIA assisted the Contras in an attempt to defeat worldwide communism. (It was not understood at that time that communism is a self-defeating ideology.)

The support continued until 1985, a year in which seven hostages were held prisoner in Iran. In order to secure their release, a point upon which his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had greatly struggled, Reagan decided to violate an embargo against selling arms to Iran. The deal was weapons for hostages. Iran received the weapons, released three hostages, and captured three more. The scandal broke upon Reagan’s administration: he had created a terrorist market.

The money received from the sale of weapons were funneled to the Contras in Nicarauga, who continued their fight to expel their communist enemies. George H.W. Bush, who served as president from 1989 and 1993, issued pardons to several of the people involved in the affair. One of the leading men involved in the scandal, Oliver North, never spent a day in jail as a result of his actions.

Quote:Neither candidate is talking about Julian Assange, who is still in exile in an embassy in England, unable to move out due to fear of prosecution and arrest from the American government, or any allied nation. Neither candidate is talking about the persecution of whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, who both shone a light on the government’s illegal activities. Neither candidate is talking about the unequal application of justice when bankers working for JP Morgan Chase engage in all manner of criminal activity without being brought up on charges while hardworking people who contribute to society can be arrested and locked up for life just for owning an illegal plant. Neither candidate is talking about the sharp decline in American education standards, caused in large part by a ridiculous program called Common Care. Neither candidate has yet to speak about anything sensible or positive. Instead, they spout out feel-good statements that don’t mean anything.

At its core, the existence of the government itself represents a new problem in American life: that of an aristocracy. In feudal Europe, the aristocracy was a small group of people who ruled counties and nations by virtue of their birth (or military victories). The divine right of kings emerged as a made-up principle to explain why kings were granted the right to rule: God had said they could. No member of the aristocracy, able to impose what tax they thought best, able to confiscate the majority of products produced by the people under his supervision, talked about changing the system. Edward VIII’s abdication of the English throne in the 20th century was an aberration, not the norm. People in power like to hold on to that power.

The situation appears to be no different in today’s dysfunctional, inefficient, bureaucratic government. Instead of an aristocracy arising as a result of lineage, we have an aristocracy which has arisen as a result of concentrated power in the hands of a select few. That new people can enter into government through elections does not change its nature as an exclusive club intended only for a small part of the population. Indeed, the presumption that less than 600 members of Congress can construct wise and effective legislation to govern 300 million people in America appears no different than the ideology of feudal Europe which held that a Duke and his family were wise enough to create rules to govern the affairs of all the people who lived within the land he owned. The few continue to rule the many; the form is merely different.

As a result, it is difficult to view either candidate putting their hat in for the 2016 presidential election and think any good will come of anybody being president. The system itself is broken, perhaps beyond repair. Changing the person in charge will not change the system itself, not even if someone travels back in time to 1964 and snatches Ronald Reagan out of the past in order to provide some common-sense wisdom. Drastic measures are the only things that can save the American government from what appears to be a complete fiscal collapse. Anyone who is not willing to take, or even consider, such measures cannot really be said to be on the side of America. Rather, such candidates as we have are on the side of the new American aristocracy, a group of people who are dedicated to the destruction of everything we hold dear.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Messages In This Thread
Re: Next President of the United Fates of America - by Wook - 03-22-2015, 02:13 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)