|
“Yet how can there be better protection
for A and B, if S must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of
S as an expropriating property protector? In fact, is this not exactly what is also–and more appropriately–referred
to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between A and B but only so that he himself can rob both of
them more profitably.” –Hans-Hermann
Hoppe
Establishment Partisan Politics Protection Racket
The enormous energy spent on analyzing
candidates and predicting elections is time wasted when the actual decisions are predetermined before the voting takes place.
Even excluding voter fraud from the final count, the party selection process has made the decision. The pretense that primaries
reflect the will of the electorate deceives the registered voter, amuses the party insiders and benefits the advertisement
and media moguls. Ideas, policy positions and core principles take a back seat to the art of spinning and negatively defining
the opponent. Rivals start within your own party. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the
Republicans Tighten Grip on Debates in 2016 Race. "Party leaders want to tighten their grip on a presidential
primary season they believe has grown unruly and too long. This year, the party moved to set the nominating calendar by scheduling
the first four contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — for February, allowing other states
to begin voting in March and holding winner-take-all primaries starting March 15. Taken together,
these procedural steps could thwart an underfunded insurgent who needs the free exposure of televised debates and would be
hurt by a series of rapid-fire contests in March that could be tilted toward an establishment-backed contender. A few conservative stalwarts on the committee are nervous about the establishment’s consolidation of power
over the primaries. "Do we want a committee of the national committee, which will surely be controlled by the national
chairman, picking which candidates participate in all Republican presidential debates?"
This point is illustrated in the AP report RNC Changes debate Rules for 2016. "The RNC rules panel endorsed the creation of a 13-person committee that would limit how many presidential
debates can take place and who can ask the questions. The full committee on Friday went along with that plan to ban candidates
who participate in scofflaw debates from future RNC-backed sessions, by a 152-to-7 vote." Before
the usual ceremonial indignation takes hold, ask yourself what is exactly sacrosanct about a stacked primary system that has
little to do with an open contest. Patricians that make up the GOP establishment long ago graduated from the country club
set. Nonetheless, the bleeding hearts over at Salon would have you believe that the Democrats
operate by different rules. Why Democrats need a primary, too offers advice why the anointed "Queen of Mean" that Rodman woman, would attain a benediction from
going through an orchestrated charade before her canonization. "Clinton would
benefit from that input just as all incumbents and other party luminaries do, despite the fact that they would rather not
have to have that fight. It is not good for a president to take the office without having taken the temperature of his or
her supporters and understanding what they care about and what they expect. During a tempestuous period like this one, it’s
even more important than usual. It would only be to her advantage to have a challenger who could bring forth those issues
and allow the public to see them argued before she goes up against a Republican."
Lost
in the fervor of progressive rhetoric is that the Democratic Party is just as elitist as the Republicans are. Both operate
as useful idiots and corporatist tools of a system that has long ago abandoned the practice of free enterprise. Contrast this American version of a Punch and Judy show that has an elephant bully bemoaning the folk hero Robin
Hood, who actually resembles an ass, with the exceptional Broadway Play, "The Best Man" by Gore Vidal. Watch the
1964 movie version and consider just how far the political system has collapsed in half a century. The
basic assumption in the play and movie is that the nominee of the Democratic Party will handedly beat their Republican opponent.
Characterizing convention ballot voting by delegates as a genuine selection process may be strange to those who were raised
on the myth that registered voters in a state primary really has a voice in the inauguration of the next President. A system of party bosses and smoke room dealmakers, surely must be far worse from the televised mortifying pilgrimage
and penitent self-flagellation that goes into winning the party’s nomination? Or, is it . . .
Remember the way the primaries served
the faithful Democrats in 2008. "According to news reports, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went out of their way to hold their long-awaited
private meeting in a very specific location - not at Hillary's mansion in Washington - but in Northern Virginia, which also
just happens to be the scene of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting.The neo-liberal
website Wonkette, which had previously ridiculed "conspiracy theorists" for ascribing power
to Bilderberg, seemed to take a somewhat different tone when it made the connection between Obama and Hillary's meeting and
the Bilderberg Group." Orders
from on high or more to the point, international deciders had their "heart to heart" with Hillary, passing her over,
and giving her a maybe for 2016. George W. Bush liked to call himself the decider, but we all should know that decisions
out of Skull and Bones are not based upon primary results. Vidal’s
screenplay portrayed a party convention as a real nomination fight. To whatever slime degree existed in the horse-trading
to win delegates back then, the appearance in today’s selection makes no pretext of concealing the hidden hands behind
picking the next President. The
partisan politics protection racket has but one goal; namely, serve and safeguard establishment interests of the elites, who
really command the ultimate power. In addition to the Presidency, Congress shares broad similarities in their version of The Incumbent Protection Racket. "In the U.S.
House of Representatives, over the past five elections, incumbents have been re-elected at an average rate of 96 percent.
According to my unscientific calculations, a congressman is more likely to be eaten by a polar bear while panning for gold
in Key West than to be voted out of office."
Serious
challenges in Congressional district primacies are rare. The exception was in 2010 with the success of Tea Party candidates.
However, such expression of the will of the people cannot stand in the polluted Potomac sewer that passes for representative
democracy. Just look at the concerted efforts to sabotage populist support to retool the excesses in the federal government.
Party Goers - What Do You
Take With Your Tea?, indicates that all the sugar in the Caribbean will not prevent the political
diabetes disease from going into shock. The bipartisan protection con knows how to close ranks among the political class. "When
main street middle class beleaguered taxpayers resonated that, the system was out of whack, the damage control team went into
overdrive. This background helps to explain why the face of unprompted Tea Party individualism must be distorted, maligned
and redirected."
Great disappointment among Tea
Party activists in the hostile welcome from establishment NeoCons has set in. The alternative to playing the no win beltway
game provided in Dissecting U.S. Elections
- the People vs. the Pols, best states the rational solution.
"What if a real grassroots national movement emerged that
supersedes all ideology with a singular purpose – remove all careerist "pols" from office. Forget about the
phony No Labels effort to diffuse popular disgust. The solution is to attract the very citizens who NEVER vote in elections.
A national campaign – No Confidence – would be the clear
message that the arrogant confidence game crooks could understand."
Drawing
upon a universal appeal to break from the travesties of the two party frauds is necessary to register countrywide outrage.
Only through vigorous dissention will The Meaning of Third Parties
in America, bring the necessary pressure to collapse both the Democrat and Republican
Parties. "The
solution to implement meaningful reform is to defuse the political power that is presently concentrated within the ‘Tweedle-dumb
and Tweedle Dee' parties. The notion that differences between them are based upon core principles, denies the unending descent
into 'collectivism'. The edges have varied shapes, but the centers are formed from the same sponge."
You can always resolve that either party
will never nominate "The Best Man". If you are so delusional to believe that a woman is the answer in the oval office,
look in a different direction. Elizabeth Warren the self-proclaimed Pinocchio-hontas, is a sorry excuse for an accomplished
liar. Flush with law school disingenuous skills, this want-a-be feminine messiah would have you believe that Hillary is the
New World Order’s favorite grandmother.
Nonetheless,
fake opposition simply projects the image that there is a choice in candidates. Noam Scheiber, in the New Republic writes,
"A Clinton-Warren matchup would have all sorts of consequences, none of them especially heartwarming. The most immediate
is that Warren would probably lose." Well so much for a contest between squaws, better suited for commitment to the Hiawatha Insane Asylum. Partisan politics is mostly a ruse designed to divert attention from service to the substantial
interests of establishment globalists. The noise generated around campaigns and media coverage, ignores or conceals the existent
deals that serve the real goals and intentions of the master puppeteers. The terminal lesson is that establishment politics
treats the public as reservation squatters. SARTRE – May 12, 2014
|
