Saturday, July 18, 2015

It's a Matter of Priorities isn't it?

The nine murders in Charleston South Carolina prompted a national reaction, as we should expect it to. However, it turned out to be the wrong discussion. Instead of a public debate about the mentally ill and their access to guns or the dangers of political extremism (from either side), the corporate media dictated the topic by focusing on the completely irrelevant issue of the Confederate flag, which prompted South Carolina's Governor, Nikki Haley, to be the first to grovel at the feet of the "PC" crowd and show the world just how low she would bow by immediately removing the "Southern Cross" from the grounds of the state's capitol. The corporate media's control of the "discussion" caused several other jurisdictions to jump on the brown-nose bandwagon by offering up their politically correct but culturally corrupt solution to the non-existent Confederate flag issue.

In what is perhaps the most historically profane move, the Memphis City Council voted to dig up the remains of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife and remove their remains from a public cemetery. At this point, I don't know what they intend to do with their remains or even if they have permission from their descendants. Others locales are also considering removing the remains of the their dead Confederates as well. One has to wonder if ultimately they will dig up the remains of everyone who supported the "Lost Cause". Maybe this will extend to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and every one of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves (although, as we know, the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, slavery is still incorrectly taught as the popular myth as to the origins of the War between the States).

For those states not planning on exhuming the Confederate dead, there are still plans on prohibiting the flying or displaying of the various Confederate flags at burial sites, on the graves of Confederate soldiers, or on national Civil War battlefields. The discussion extends to the removal of Confederate monuments and statues as well. In Frankfort Kentucky, the State Legislature is reviewing a proposal to remove the statue of native son and President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, from the basement level of the state capitol building (it had previously been removed from the Rotunda). Exactly what they intend to do with is up in the air. Perhaps it will be used for fill just as the ancient pharaohs did to the statues of their former rivals or those out of favor with the priesthood. I guess the Kentucky State Legislature will replace ole Jeff's statue will that of a basketball goal.

Recently, the Atlanta Georgia chapter of the NAACP demanded that the likenesses of Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, and Jefferson Davis be "sandblasted" off the mountain side at the Stone Mountain State Park. The state park also houses a Confederate Hall, with historical artifacts and documents. I presume that they expect it to be closed too. In all fairness, it should be noted that the "Southern Cross" will be "permitted" to fly at the exhibit, for now at least. Meanwhile, several large retailers, in an apparent case of tush-kissing and racial catering, have decided to stop carrying any items which contains anything bearing the Confederate flag or symbols of the Confederacy. One TV network has stopped showing reruns of "The Dukes of Hazard" because the famous orange Dodge bears the name "General Lee" and has a Confederate flag on its roof; this, despite of the fact that the show has proven to be very popular with audiences over the last 30 years, has received no previous racially oriented complaints over those same 30 years, and yet they will continue to broadcast shows which are racial or gender insensitive. Other networks still show movies or air comics with reverse racial discrimination themes and think nothing of it. Frankly, none of this bothers me. I'm smart enough to know that I can always turn the channel if I find the material offensive, but I still have to wonder why it's unacceptable for one group but not the other? If you're going to do for one, then you need to do the same for the others don't you think? All that's been accomplished, in my opinion, was to further divide Americans and rattle the cages of the race baiters, which is what I believe was the intent of the corporate media while Congress and the Supreme Court enacted laws without public discussion; almost "as if" it was done intentionally behind our backs while we were purposefully distracted.

What we're experiencing is a new form of governing by sleight-of-hand by Washington as it willfully ignores the Constitution. We are witnessing the intentional "whitewashing" or rewriting if you will, our collective history. That is the stuff we hear about in places like Mao's Communist China, Kim's North Korea, Stalinist Russia, and other nations under the rule of single party dictatorships. While we aren't---technically---a single party dictatorship, we are in fact a dual party oligarchy where we have two political parties working on behalf of a corporate elite while we are given the illusion of choice to make us feel like we actually have a say in the outcome
Currently, as you may have noticed, the corporate media has been trying to refocus our attention from the issue of Confederate symbolism to so-called "sanctuary cities" following the murder of Kathryn Steinle by Apolinar Altamirano, an illegal immigrant. This individual had been deported to Mexico numerous times but knowing our unenforced immigration laws (thank you President Obama and Eric Holder) admitted to settling in San Francisco because of its alleged "open arms" position towards illegals. I find it a little more than ironic that states can't decide about the Confederate flag yet they can decide about upholding federal immigration laws or not. In fact, when Arizona attempted to simply enforce immigration laws already on the books, as they are legally entitled to do, President Obama ordered then US Attorney General Eric Holder to file suit against Arizona and what was a first, allowed a foreign nation (Mexico) to interplead in the lawsuit! It seems we're seeing a simple game of "pick and choose".

The US currently has some 12 million (or more) illegal immigrants living here. There are some 200 "sanctuary cities" where many of these individuals settle, knowing full well that no attempts will be made to discover their identities or have them deported. Most of these individuals are good people. They're here to make a fair living; most, if not all, know they are in full violation of US immigration laws, but simply don't care. For some, it's better to take their chances here than return home. Many are taken advantage of by criminal employers who know their victims have nowhere to turn to. Some are homeless wonderers. Yet, to make matters worse, among these individuals, there are thousands upon thousands who are engaged in criminal activities---from gangs and drugs to rape and murder, just like what happened to Ms. Steinle on Pier 14 in San Francisco; murdered with a stolen law enforcement officer's handgun by a homeless illegal immigrant who had been deported countless timeless living in a city which doesn't care.

Now, why is our attention being diverted again, this time to "sanctuary cities", I don't know. What are they trying to cover-up or sneak through is anybody's guess. Perhaps it has something to do with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which secretly pasted Congress and essentially gave away---allegedly---our ability to formulate our own trade policies (I say "allegedly" because the public hasn't been given the contents of the agreement. However, it does allow the President, in direct violation of the Constitution, the ability to "fast track" trade treaties. That authority--- treaties---belonged to Congress). Then again, it could be Secretary of State John Kerry's deal with Iran in which the Iranians "promise" not to develop any nukes or enrich any weapons grade uranium in exchange to a multi-billion dollar bribe paid for by the American Taxpayers and released frozen Iranian assets. It doesn't prohibit them from outsourcing of course, but then again, who is going to stop them? The United Nations? Stomp their feet and count to three? Of course, there could be---and likely is---something else altogether.

We need to be ever more watchful and outspoken than ever before. While we were watching our games and reality shows, or playing video games, or Tweeting, or taking "selfies", our democratic republic was stolen from us; in truth, we willingly gave it away. We are now---officially---an oligarchy where government serves the needs of the very rich and key trans-national, mostly financial, defense, and oil, corporations. This is not "our" government any longer folks. Certainly not the government of our Founding Fathers. True, we are still allowed the illusion of deciding between two political parties, but I assure the outcome has long before been decided. The role of mainstream media---TV, radio, print, and Internet---is controlled by just six companies by the way, is to entertain, distract, mislead, and subtly manipulate what we think in order to keep us docile. That's all. That means keeping it dumbed down and focused away from what really matters. Feed us preprocessed and regurgitated "news" in small easy to swallow sounds bites.

Schools are more about babysitting instead of educating. The curriculum has been dumbed down to produce barely functional young adults. In many cases, not even that. Don't believe me? Ask your parents or grandparents what they were taught in school. Better yet, pick up a primer from the 1930's or '40's and take a look (and remember, they didn't use computers or calculators). As Henry Ford once said (to paraphrase), he didn't want an educated work force. He wanted only those trainable enough to do a job. No advanced critical thinking skills required! The US loses out to second and even third tier nations on academic tests year after year. Most of the time we don't even make it into the top 1/3. In some areas, we're at or near the bottom. Why?

I think the answer is pretty simple. An educated populace is a dangerous populace. Our Founding Fathers even told us so. It's one which will routinely question it's leaders and expect serious answers. It will demand governmental responsibility. It would set and expect to reach certain social goals, like reducing crime, hunger, homeless, pollution, and social injustices, regardless of the obstacles. It would demand corporate accountability. An educated populace won't be satisfied with taking the easy way out or accepting Pablum for news. It certainly wouldn't accept sleight-of-hand governing or diversionary issues like the Confederate flag, and there would be no "kicking the can down the road". An educated population would have never let our democratic republic slip away.

So, I put it to you again, what are you going to do? Vote for the same snake oil salesmen? Voting for an "outsider" promising "reform"? Folks, there's nothing left to "reform". Accept the same old repackaged "choices" Washington allows you to pick from? Continue to be diverted from what's really happening by watching the same corporate news outlets but expecting the truth? Or will you allow yourself, your family, your children and their children to be economic serfs; slaves without chains, but slaves nevertheless? Maybe you will even let them get chipped just like cattle. I can't wait to see your answers.

Obama's silence on Kathryn Steinle killing is deafening

S.F. 'sanctuary' policy violates common sense: Our view

Nuke deals helps Qasem Soleimani

While Sheeple Lose Their Minds The TTP Is Passed

No comments: