Gradual Subversion of the Democratic Party

Many of the traits that we either have or admire in other people...that make us human - loyalty, trustworthiness, faithfulness, a tendency to seek out heroes, etc. - unfortunately, also makes us more likely to ignore evidence that contradicts what we believe to be true. In fact, the evidence to the contrary can manifest itself as large as an elephant, yet we still ignore. In other words, our humanness makes us vulnerable to master manipulators who may very well be less than human.

This brings me to why I believe in the co-option of the left.  The modern liberal – typically associated with the Democratic Party - fears the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; thinks all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life; champions the protection of the environment, and puts the welfare of all people above the ability of a few to profit enormously from what we’ve been led to believe is the “free market”.

Unlike the Republicans - who,  regardless of their status in life, seem to support the less humanitarian, less "bleeding heart" values of those who dwell at the apex of society - the positions that the Democrats  usually take, make the Democratic Party, in particular, more threatening to the powerful and wealthy. Simply put, the Democrats [used to] believe in speaking truth to power, whereas the ruling class is not interested in truth...only in growing and keeping all of their their wealth and power to themselves.

Therefore, it makes sense, that if the elitists want(ed) to secure their power base, throwing the Democrats/progressives/liberals off their scent...even better, engaging them in the task of defending/supporting their "cause" just might make their road a little easier.  So, why not push their agenda through the Democratic Party; albeit, much more covertly than they do, through the Republican Party.

How?

That's simple, when you consider the aforementioned traits that make us human. It's all about making good use of timing; infiltration, semantics (Orwellian doublespeak); consensus making -  placement of "change agents" or "facilitators" and "divide and conquer" technique (Delphi technique), and let's not forget the Hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution), and/or psychological warfare.  In other words, deceiving the liberals by embedding their operations in issues that appeal to the left.

The evidence for this transformation is right in front of our eyes.  Ever since President Clinton took office, the Democratic Party has gradually moved so far to the right that it's transformed into the Republican party. Moreover, from "the environment" to "family planning", the issues or causes that the Democrats have traditionally supported have been, more or less, co-opted by the ruling class to mask their true motives. 

“I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”

MR. RUSSERT: Let me pick up on some interviews that you’ve given this week as you’ve been touring, talking about your book, “The Age of Turbulence.” You said this: “I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.” Republican?

MR. GREENSPAN: I’m sure he doesn’t like that joke, but if you look at his record compared to what I think appropriate policy ought to be, he’s for free trade, he’s for globalization, he was for welfare reform, fiscal restraint and—true enough, he’s not a Republican. I’m sorry, President Clinton, I didn’t mean to say that. But I must say, I had to follow an awful lot of your particular guidelines and found them very compatible with my own.

Remember DADT/DOMA-signing President Clinton promising that NAFTA wouldn't hurt a bit? Welfare Reform Act of 1996? Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act? DADT?

Fast forward a bit and we have President Bush 2.0 Obama who is a master at cloaking his almost neo-con "actions" in moderate, democratic rhetoric.  Obama, who Jeremy Scahill called "Blackwater's New Sugar Daddy" has upgraded America’s network of overseas detention facilities or ‘black sites’; approved the assassination of American citizens; signed a defense bill that blocks his bid to close Guantanamo Bay;  supports a 3-year extension of Patriot Act surveillance; extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, etc. Sure President Obama throws a bone to his base every once in a while, just like the Clinton administration did, but, for the most part, it's just a bone. Unless he's got some super secret strategy I'm unaware,  President Obama is as "Republican" as former President Clinton.

Regarding the co-opting of issues,  take global warming, of which a very strong argument can be made proving it's not man-made.  To be sure, the issue of global warming falls under the category of a "liberal" cause; however, if you dig deep enough and research Agenda 21, "sustainable development" and Global Biodiversity Assessment (the blueprint for Agenda 21) you will find a huge profit motive whose carbon reducing methods exploit all of us, but especially, those who have the least.

In the US, tighter controls on levels of consumption, and standards of living, intrusive carbon taxes, tolls, massive land grabs, conservation easement, zoning restrictions, energy audits, forcing small business to become energy efficient,  etc. are supposed to take place. Some already have.

"... an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people, probably more if the large agricultural population were supported by an industry-promoting agricultural activity. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion…” -- U.N. Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, states at page 773:””Whittaker and Likens (1975)

Former President Kennedy defined a liberal as the following:

“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.

Granted, as a 'Liberal', he didn't make it far, and maybe that's why he was our second to last liberal president. Former President Johnson was probably our last.

Read more...

What Happened to the Sanctity of Marriage, Mr. Rove?

Holy horrors Mr. Rove! The gays destroyed your marriage? Again? For the second time? How?

Oh, I'll bet it was your gay affairs, right? I know gay men can be so irresistible. Because, it certainly couldn't have been the no-fault divorce laws that allow married couples to destroy their marriage on a whim...with a mere stroke of the pen. No, of course not. The no-fault divorce laws have nothing to do with the destruction of marriage in this country.

Nevertheless, what about the Defense of Marriage Act? Why didn't that kick in and defend your marriage?

"Rove obtained his divorce under Texas' "no-fault" divorce law, one of the most permissive in the nation. That law basically allows any married couple to simply end their marriage because they feel like it. Texas, needless to say, is one of the states which has constitutionally barred same-sex marriages." -- Glen Greenwald

Wedge politics...

What's that Mr. Rove? Oh, you don't really care about preserving, what you pretended to believe, are Christian concepts of "traditional marriage". You were just using that as a means to mobilize support and galvanize voters during the last presidential campaign and barring gay marriage was crucial to your "3G" mantra (Gays, Guns and God) for the win.

So, you mean all your efforts to ban gay citizens from getting married was a ruse? A tactic to focus we the people's hatred toward one group of people, and to provide a big red herring to distract from the real issues?

Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks, who will lie, cheat, steal, smear, destroy...do just about anything to win, is once again, getting what he wants.

Read more...

Will Same-Sex Marriage Be the Next Thing on Blackwater's Agenda?

Imagine this. You and your loved one tie the knot. A few years later, the major breadwinner, the one who makes the most money and the health insurance that covers the both of you, is transferred to Virginia. If you don't go, the breadwinner will lose his job.

What do you do? Simple right? You go.

However, what if going means you and the one you pledged your undying love for will cease to be married? Do you refuse the transfer and risk financial ruin or move to Kansas and annihilate your marriage?

Let's take it one-step further. Same scenario, but you are married with children and one of you has decided to stay home and raise the children and take care of the home. You are all covered under his health insurance.

What do you do? Once again, a no-brainer. You go. That is, if you are a heterosexual married couple. If not, sorry, you're on your own. Go, and you dissolve the marriage, losing all the advantages you have gained by making a legal commitment or if you choose to stay, you may keep your marriage intact - as long as the federal authorities allow it to stay that way - but risk financial ruin.

Same-sex married couples are tax-paying American citizens! Why should they have to endure what the vast majority of married couples do not? Shouldn't all citizens reap the benefits of both the state and federal laws? Are the same people who are exempt from reaping the benefits of following the "rule of law" exempt from the penalties incurred by opposing the "rule of law"? No, of course they're not. Not only do the gay married couples miss cashing in on the advantages of being married, they are exposed to an even greater number of penalties because the advantageous part of the law does not apply to them.

Now, back to my original question. Since the Bush Administration is coming to an end, what will Blackwater's role encompass? It's fairly safe to say, if Obama wins, Blackwater may not be as much of an issue, however if the "new" McCain wins, and continues devolving himself in order to squeeze into the self-righteous neocon mold, chances are Blackwater, a.k.a., the "Praetorian Guard" will continue to prevail with the same lack of oversight and just as unaccountable as they are now.

So, what's to stop the Blackwater "thugs" from trumping state statutes on gay marriage, in order to enforce federal law? Just as it appears happened when our government issued the order for the federal raid on a medical marijuana facility in California.

Nothing, because the intersection of federal and state law does not exist for gay married couples. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the provision in the United States Constitution that requires each state to give "Full Faith and Credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

As it is, federal agencies like the IRS do not recognize gay marriage, making it twice as hard for gay married couples to do their taxes, not to mention, all the money gay couples lose because they do not qualify for the federal benefits opposite gendered married couples are automatically entitled.

The function of the Supreme Court is translation of the Constitution, nevertheless, judges are political human beings and subject to the same biases we all are. This is one of the reasons judicial nominations can turn into what can only be described as a three-ring circus. Everyone knows how important it is to get the judge nominated who agrees with his or her views.

Gay marriage cannot be left to the states, because it essentially leaves same-sex married couples at the mercy of the political whim of those in power at any given time. Taking the time to fight for gay marriage, state by state, is counter productive because the optimum outcome is precarious at best and ultimately it is designed to fail.

What good is a marriage license that can be revoked at any time? What good is a marriage license that exempts you from most of the advantages of marriage? What good is a marriage license that confines you to one state? What good is a marriage license that makes you face the cruel process of deciding between your marriage and financial stability? What good is a marriage license that exposes you to the potential tyranny of federal law?

Links:

PEW Forum Gay Marriage Issue Page

The Gay Entrepreneur’s Toolkit: 100 Networking Resources, Guides, and Links

Gay Executive

Read more...