The American People may not really have a candidate unless the present campaign turns seriously toward representation.
Except for the questions of monetary irregularity raised by fringe campaigns which were granted little exposure by the media which owns America to preserve usury, the prevailing par of the Punch and Judy Show has heralded “winning,” “change,” or tacit further privatization, without even daring to venture such comprehensive substance as would prove a fundamental solution to monetary failure.
On a playing field where the winner will preside over the probability of further catastrophe, Obama supporters ask how their candidate can shed the inexperience label and whimsically liken his movement of undefined solution to a sailing vessel:
“We are the wind; we are the sail; we are the ship; we are the destination. We are eternal; we are now. And, we are not alone.”
Americans are right — not to ask for experience, but to hold their representatives and candidates accountable for solution.
It can be observed truly that none but an incumbent can claim experience. But obviously, even so, experience is not even a merit, if it is not a record of producing the highest forms of solution; neither is one area of experience necessarily any basis whatever for success in any further area of service.
For experience to be a merit, still therefore requires that we link experience to the proposition of solution — which we can only know by the facts which make it so. As in any industry or discipline then, the only veritable demonstration of competence is to produce and demonstrate solution forthright.
Being that our people are as much as abandoned by both parties, and being an old sailor and student of campaigns in which candidates (Ronald Reagan for instance) advocated “change,” I would like for the potential benefit of the campaign and the people, to point out the underlying abstractions of vital goals which the campaign falls short of.
First however, let’s assess where we are: Obama is in a position of potential landslide strength, because of the lies, universal failures, very looting of our country into the ground, and prospective severe near term monetary failure at hand — with all of this to be perpetuated by the candidate of the other major party. Much as there is certain betrayal within the Republican party, there is a revolution there best represented by Ron Paul’s appeal to return to our country’s roots. What does the revolution want? It wants sane taxation, minimal government, justice, reasonable, reciprocal foreign policy, real solution.
Note please that these were principles which this form of government was devised both to embody and to preserve.
Although Democrats are labeled maliciously as “tax and spend,” “big government” advocates, *on the contrary, I myself for instance am for the contrary*; and yet appeal to this candidate because *I know* the other major candidate will not give us the things this country needs. But still, I believe that no citizen can really be for inefficient government, unjust taxation, an unjust monetary system which in fact inherently imposes collapse upon us, or any other matter/principle of cost to us — because anyone who understands these things realizes they are all against all of us.
Yet I’m seeing people in both Democrat and Republican forums advocate abandoning principles and precedents which we must preserve.
What is the danger of that? Is there no standard which we, the very public must adhere to? A public can never but by mere luck secure representation by abandoning its vital principles. We have paved the way for many problems to fester and multiply, because we have forgotten even that the seats of government, whoever reaches them, still represent responsibilities to represent all. We diverge as a people, because we are not even looking for solutions which represent all.
Intuitively, there are many of us who do attempt to maintain the standards of the vital original principles by correcting those of us who carelessly cast them away. But if not for that, we epitomize the detrimental labels which infer inefficient government, unjust/redundant taxation, and so forth, which play right into the hands of the negative politics of the other side even while that side condemns itself to the politics of fear and denigration, because it doesn’t have a program or principle, either.
So the little real distance between the opposing poles to now is reflected by practically twin sides, fallen into different cracks between self destructive standards.
Yet if there is a definable substance of change in the Obama movement, the corresponding movement on the other side was the Ron Paul movement, which despite its naivete in regard to monetary solution, was at least looking beyond the obviously flawed monetary policy which is failing us, and will fail us further. Where are Ron Paul’s abandoned numbers to go, but to the side which ultimately advocates solution?
To the preclusion of all good reason therefore, some Democrats advocate first getting their candidate elected, then counting on blind hope that he’ll implement real solution. What’s an example of that? How would we ever achieve representation by denying its substance to the election process? Don’t we only deny the *many* disenfranchised from supporting solution by doing so? Why should any of us have blind faith in “change,” when all campaigns should be about solution?
According to reports I’m receiving, there are a million homes in foreclosure and 12,000 homes going into foreclosure daily. Only a few months ago, it was 8,000 a day. Major banks across the world are now predicting catastrophic ramifications, not just for the U.S., and far beyond the scope of the so called sub-prime mortgage crisis. Vast other fragile areas of concern can hardly be unaffected. Shopping malls are empty. Infrastructures are wearing out. People are buying camping trailers to live in.
Reports I’ve received for many years tell me most people at least intuitively recognize the faults of the present, privatized monetary system, and hold it responsible for our greatest problems. During the first 7 years of the Reagan Administration, we plummeted from “the world’s greatest creditor nation” to its lowliest debtor, and have been falling ever since. Neither of course did Bill Clinton truly balance the budget, for there was no real increase in industry, tax rates or revenues, nor was there a reduction of federal expenses which substantiate such a claim.
So what’s the difference between the sides here, if neither are advocating solution?
To this very moment, both sides abandon the only principles which can sustain the country. Congress can *say* for instance that they have to pass FISA “because otherwise, we fall back to the faults of their earlier bill”; but then again, they’re at fault for that too, for compromising standards in the first place. If you want a quality country, you never, never, never debase the vital principles.
So I’m pointing to what really amounts to a vast void. There’s no substance to “a movement” *without a solution*.
What’s the solution for Obama regarding FISA?
As I wrote him yesterday, I see no reason why Congress cannot preserve the rights, privacy, and even the anonymity of a republic in its efforts to protect it. When you *engineer* something which works, you adhere at least to minimal principles; but when you engineer something that works *as well as possible* (which is the incontrovertible obligation of representation), you devise the ideal implementation of all relevant principles.
There’s a great difference between the two; and to the greatest extent of responsibility, Congress and the people of this country have settled even for *the perpetual* compromise of vital standards.
What would I have done if I were Obama? I wouldn’t care a flying leap what the people think or say; I’d *LEAD*; I’d vote no on any and every bill that compromised *any* principle, because a [truly] great country is not an infrastructure compromising itself into oblivion; a great country holds *in every case* to the most exemplary principles. Compromises make bad laws.
So I’d vote no on the first flaw I found; and a much greater country indeed we’d be if we held to that standard, because at least we would not make ourselves subjects of such a vast misbegotten conglomeration of pretended law or regulation.
What would the consequence of voting no on FISA be?
Bush has no respect for the law, and will do as he pleases. No thus means that while the same things *might* happen anyway under Bush (regardless of this purportedly necessary bill); we don’t have another bad law. We send the signal to Congress that they have to elevate their act; we send the signal to the people that *we understand that real unity and representation are ONLY based on principles which serve all of us*; and, when we become president, being the chief executive, law or no, we hold to those standards *even without* Congress meeting them with a regulation.
Then we’re a leader, aren’t we?
That’s a win on all fronts in my book. But it’s also *an example* of the only principle which can save us.
In sailing, the first boat to the weather mark takes the shortest course by tacking on headers and persisting course on lifts. There are exceptions to this as a general rule, particularly at the lay line; but still, even the exceptions are about what explicit principles get you to the weather mark first.
The campaign is said to be a campaign for unity. But it proves itself to be no such thing if it’s fledgling steps toward the starting block leave the boat in dirty air, compromise boat speed, and leave us to a worse starting position. The whole crew can see that; and they rightly wane in faith in the helmsman, seeing his errs compromise not just the position and prospects of the boat, but our real hope for representation.
Obama might claim to be a uniter; and you can trust that I would like to find that out; unity, by delivering solution, is the whole purpose for which I write. But particularly among such a fickle people, who themselves have so long lost the way, unity is not only going to be a matter of always, always, always adhering to the most supreme perception of principle; it is going to be a matter of conveying the involved principles and the engineering of solution to the people.
When your crew, the people, spy the header ahead, the helmsman must at least recognize which of his crew can read the wind if he’s going to win the race.
To jump and shout for mathematically perfected economy in the face of outlined causes of a catastrophic monetary failure ahead, and to not get a call, that to me is not a good sign. The starting watch is ticking down. This is the boat to defeat. But it isn’t even loading its gun if it isn’t absorbing the best prospects of principle and solution out there.
This isn’t just a boat race. It’s a gun fight in which only one thing should win — and that’s real solution. To just advocate change, to fail to detail solution at this point, is to call Bill Cody without a card in your hand, then face him in the street with your underwear around your ankles, no gun, and no bullet.
The winds are constantly changing. You tack or you stay with the lift. You look every moment for boat speed. You hear the guy on your boat who can read the wind. Your crew is made to hold the same standards you must, because first, only when the whole crew is on the same page, *should* you win; and because secondly, to *choose* to do anything less therefore is to choose to risk losing.
For a campaign which can serve our country at this dire time particularly, the issue is to be the best; and the one thing which decides the best is solution.
When you’re in a position of potential landslide strength, and if even as you fall to a poor position at the start you continue to advocate only just doing something different than what was done before… you fail to convince us you have the first principle of success. The captain of the winning boat *is the captain* because his skill is not only recognizing the principles which will prevail, but directly weaving them into *certain* solution.
In a political contest ostensibly for representation, the candidate we need is the candidate who can prove solution. It’s far too deep into the race to be advocating merely that we’ll need to change course. What course? Why? How? Those are the things we have to know.
Stand up, Obama. And give us real solutions. They’re right under your nose. We’re trying to give them to you; and you’ll lead us only if you can recognize who can read the wind.