Posted by
CyberMom on Friday, June 26, 2009 3:14:17 PM
Quite some time back I discussed America as an up and coming Empire - An Empire being:
1. The region over which Imperial Dominion is exercised,
2. A group of countries under a single authority (which, Great Britain, and America, both qualify as),
3. A monarchy with an Emperor as the head of state,
4. conglomerate, a group of diverse companies under common ownership and run as a singular entity
An Imperial Dominion - a supreme ruler over all nations. Look at what America is - is it a Republic? Well, a Republic is a conglomerate, but the people have influence over the government through some form of Democracy or similar political structure. I'm not really sure that America completely qualifies as a republic any longer, given the limitations on freedom, passing of laws without representation and misrepresentation in the passing of certain laws which place dominion and control on the people. Of course, as we are on the path to a Marxist Socialist way of life, the definition of an Empire becomes more clear for America. Actions in our economy such as "the New Deal," by Roosevelt, most certainly took us away from being a Republic and began instituting solid foundations in Imperial Dominion.
As I discussed in my last article, "The New Deal '2'," the investment of the government into overpricing is most certainly tearing our economy apart as it's replaying the events that helped lead up to the great depression. A loaf of bread that was $2 is now $100, and box cars that were $75,000, are now $2,000,000; and the government won't back those items at those inflated prices, or else the currency, it's "I.O.U.'s," would devalue the gold that backs it. If you read about what happened with
Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac, GSE's that bought overpriced Mortgages/home loans (that the people couldn't repay, driving home prices through the roof), and how AIG created insurance policies to back these overinflated mortgages, you begin to see more and more of how the government, with a power/rule that far exceeds a standard "Republic," committed an act which helped contribute to the dramatic economic difficulty we're in now. The problem is, AIG is holding onto insurance policies that the government won't back. Amtrak's holding onto boxcars that the government won't back. But, because of their being in bed together, because of GSE's and special interest and Wall Street, the government creates bail outs and stimulus packages that do what? Bail out the government - NOT the people. Is that a Republic? Is that representing the interests of the people? Does that even INVOLVE the people, or were the people just pawns in this big, game? It's GSE's... bailing out GSE's, and in the process, gaining MORE control of those companies, such as AIG (as they already had Amtrak), and suddenly, the definition of an Empire as a conglomerate, run as a single business, begins to be made even MORE clear.
Roosevelt's "New Deal," and all of the sham government controls over things like "social security, housing and civil works," would crash if the government crashes. They are inflated as it is now, and as economists have warned, will become hyperinflated. The government won't back them. That's why, when you heard that AIG had to be saved to protect companies and GM had to be saved to protect jobs - it did NOTHING. the same jobs were all still lost. The same bonuses were all still given. The bailouts and the stimulus have nothing to do with protecting the people - only the GSE's - the government - and its special interests. If jobs are saved along the way, then great - but that's only a "secondary," to the main goal of government covering their own actions. See, if AIG failed, the banks would need to collect on the debts. Who do they go to? The same GSE's that purchased the overinflated mortgages in the first place ... Uncle Same (through Freddie Mae and Mac). But, Uncle Sam can't back the bank's demands without devaluing the gold. If the dollar's worth 10 pieces of gold instead of 1 - think about what that would mean to the rest of the world and their wanting to collect... we'd be in a world of hurt.
This has been seen in history where an Empire overspends. Julius Caesar was spending left and right, building his armies, catering to the poor (through entertainment, not actually "solving," their problems...) to make them "believe" he was cool, then turning on them. His power was becoming absolute and he was ruining the country. He had to be stopped. Hitler originally invested in a lot of programs that supported a lot of jobs, until he began internalizing his power to become an Emperor. He began spending on government only projects - increasing his military's strength, specialized weapons projects, funding internal government sources to be his personal regime to maintain absolute authority, and this got him in trouble with his fellow leaders and the people. Jobs declined, but the government got wealthier. He had to be stopped. The British Empire had stretched its arms out to the world and spent a lot of money to do it. In fact, in all its spending, it sold itself short. It soon began to lose hold of its colonies. In America, where the King of England was lavishing his own with monies, it created dissention and chaos, even with their neighbors, France. The point is - everywhere overspending has been an issue, the value of the economy and currency declined, nothing good came of it. This includes the Great Depression and America. The government helped march us there, and rather than march back out, they somehow convinced us to let them keep going.
Are we a Democracy? That's a question you have to answer for yourself. Are we free? I certainly hope you don't think that getting to print a few words on the internet is freedom- because I can assure you - even though another is typing these words for me, both they and I do so in fear of retribution from our government. Have you control in voting on how YOUR tax dollars are spent? A republic would. Do you have control in what laws are passed? A republic would. Do you have control of who's in the primaries for you to vote on in an election, or who gets to be president without the electoral college's special interference OR who the next supreme court justice would be? A democracy... would. This isn't even a representative democracy. People were angry about the AIG spending, but would the government take the hit for what they did and represent the people? Nope. They said, "Bad AIG, no more really, really big, personal bonuses for you - only little ones." Is that... representing what you wanted?
Your stimulus monies have gone mostly to law enforcement for the streets and justice for the courts and special interest for the government, while the jails and schools suffer. Is that what you voted on? I mean, after all, you know that when there's no money left, you'll have to join in on the rioting to get bread to feed your family, so it's good there's more law enforcement to stop you, right? Hmm....
Are you even getting a say so in the legalization of marijuana? HAHAHAHAHA - I don't care to comment on what I think about it - but we're talking about a very OLD and very SENSITIVE issue - and you get NO voice. Especially, if you're NOT for it, and it gets passed - did your 'elected official,' do what you elected them to do (or vice versa)?
A republic, this is not. Not anymore.
A capitalist country, this is not, not under the conglomeration of private business to government say so and control.
A democracy, this is not. Not with the voice of the people fading into the wind.
So, what are you left with? Do the math people. Not too many choices out there. There's socialism, and marxist socialism. There's communism, monarchy's and dictatorships. There's
aristocracies (which America has been for a long time now) and
fascism (which also defines America's political structure perfectly).
Sure - there are a few other choices. But, once you've passed by a republic and a democracy, and capitalism has declined - so has freedom. So, whatever your equation ends up with - freedom is not going to be a part of it anymore.