Poyhonen's Blog

stories and commentary

Posts Tagged ‘propaganda

Term Limits

leave a comment »

Limiting the number of elected terms for Federal representatives seems like a good method of removing long kept public servants who longer serve the public or, in some cases, never served the public.   But who picks the candidates who run for elections to replace the existing congressman or senator?  Limiting the number of terms for any elected representative does not guarantee the replacement will be any different than the existing representative.  Yes, committee controls may be affected but the new candidate could be another denizen of the swamp who will grow to accomplish the same results of the ‘old’ creature who now retires to a lucrative ‘post’ service lobbying position.  My thinking is the concept of term limits is to replace  ‘poor’ representation with an individual willing to perform actual service for his/her constituency.  To be more clear, voters need the ability to select the candidates in order to avoid replacing one miscreant with another shill provided and sold by a party seeking power, not service.

Another point argued by those against term limits is the inception of bureaucratic amateurs replacing seasoned professionals.  This argument may seem specious on the surface but there do exist some honest bureaucrats who are not corrupt, (don’t ask me to provide names).  California has state term limits and the resulting chaos is available for the review of interested people.

Term limits sounds good on the surface but our election process; controlled by campaign money, disinformation, negative propaganda, and a corrupt academia supported by an even more corrupt media needs further analysis in order to avoid making the same mistakes over and over while seeking different results.

Advertisements

The Election in Terms of Two Candidates

leave a comment »

Well, what/who do you really believe?

If you believe the candidates description of themselves – they are both wonderful.

If you believe the candidates description of each other – they are both despicable.

Most news agencies agree with Hillary’s description of Trump.

The FBI, however, agrees with Trump’s description of Hillary.

Our media generally describes Trump as being a racist, sociopath, misogynist, who hates Muslims, Mexicans, and free speech.  They even printed front page stories about women being mistreated by the billionaire. Unfortunately, the stories were debunked by the very women described in the interviews.  Their rebuttal was largely ignored.

The media reported that Trump didn’t pay his taxes but that was also not true.  The IRS, proven to be corrupt and prejudiced, would definitely go after any conservative who didn’t pay taxes.  The liberal led IRS minions even go after conservative groups based on conservative identification but there are no tax fraud charges against Trump. He must have obeyed the rules – something not mentioned by Hillary’s legions too busy making ad hominem attacks to be concerned with details and platform descriptions that provide an antithesis to their reporting.

It may be difficult to understand how trying to establish jobs and education for inner city citizens and immigrants is considered to be racist by the media and other Hillary supporters, because any Trump proposal to improve economic growth for all Americans is also largely ignored by the media.  Ignored unless they call him a racist for having a willingness to compete with Mexico and China for manufacturing and exports based upon fair trade practices.

Trump’s hatred and despicable attitude for women is surely represented by his campaign organizer who is, allegedly, a woman.  People are expected to believe she runs the campaign for a woman hater.  Her views of him defy the mainstream news by agreeing with the views of other women, the first woman to build a skyscraper, employees, and of course, the women that rebuked the NYT article describing how he mistreated them.  Still other women have come forward to claim his misconduct. Claims of payment from Hillary advocates for the timing of their oddly opportune accusations are being investigated.

In an election cycle where platforms and past accomplishments of one candidate cannot be addressed without embarrassment, only character assassination can be employed in order to convince voters that the opposing individual should not be elected.  Honesty has been abandoned in this arena.  The media supports Hillary’s misleading statements as true, her dishonest facts as being verifiable, and her distortions as benevolent revelations.  The FBI has publicly testified against many of her prior statements but her lies are still described as honest by liberal agenda driven pundits and media.

Nevertheless, Trump hardly portrays a statesman.  He mouths ‘off the cuff’ proclamations, often making inane statements and embellishments that are contrary to specific details and offering fodder to his enemies who really do understand the gist of his spurious comments but pretend dismay and offer the worst possible interpretation.  He very obviously is not a polished politician and too often blurts out his honest feelings in public venues. He has done so in a manner that can be taken out of context and used against him as propaganda by his opponents.

His opponents are everywhere.  DNC, Republicans, news media, and liberal school educators all decry his candidacy.  They teach divisive hate and the DNC has even hired people to inspire violence at Trump rallies.  Hillary audaciously accused Trump of inciting and encouraging violence at rallies when she knew her minions had hired the protesters directed to incite violent acts.  They even bragged about closing a Chicago Trump rally.  The media pays scant attention to distributing such information. Knowledgeable voters may not support their chosen candidate so a plethora of negative attention is reported against Trump while Hillary enjoys myriad reports that demean her opponent, his supporters, and potential voters.  She describes them all as racist ‘deplorables’.

Trump, in turn, responds aggressively against the disparaging charges of racism and misogyny.  His inexperience shows in his being actually angry at all the lies being told and supported by a corrupt media.  The left wing strategy of dividing voters by sex and race, popular and successful for years, seems irksome and surprising to him.  It seems like he almost expected an honest discussion of platforms and solutions to problems caused by current and prior politicians.  He even promised to ‘Drain the Swamp’ of Washington D.C government corruption.  With an ego about the size of the Atlantic, he may certainly try but our congress will become inspired to grow a spine in self defense of their hierarchy in the swamp.  There will be no emperor Trump but he may yet succeed at improving our economy, education, health, while ensuring a semblance of world peace.  This has yet to be determined as it seems fairly obvious that the swamp dwellers do not yearn to support his goals.  Besides, he would have to win a ‘rigged’ election.

Trump has been married three times and he has admitted to saying some nasty words.  He has had some failures in business and has been involved in many suits.  Business fiascos can be explained by a depressed economy and suits are rampant in public buildings where a slip on ice or debt on a gambling bill can result in a lawsuit. He, obviously, has had more successes than failures.  His family does him credit but none of them demand the level of payment for speaking fees that have been rewarded to the Clintons in return for ‘favors’ supplied by the American government.

Hillary reminds one of the Boy Who Cried Wolf story – How would anyone know if she is telling the truth?  Her supporting media lowers the value of all public information.  The corrupted Department of Justice manages to retain Hillary as a viable candidate even when the facts display actions that can easily and appropriately be described as criminal.  Most of these comments can be verified by viewing short videos and longer articles.  Perform succinct searches on topics and review sources outside of areas you normally address.  Confirm the veracity of these statements to your own satisfaction.

So – believe ABC, CNN, NYT, Huffington Post, NBC, et al – or the FBI, but if you don’t know what the platforms are or what is at stake for the future of your republic, please refrain from voting.  Our system has plenty of flaws but ignorance in the voting booth can only be individually conquered.

Obama’s Success

with one comment

Our nation has become increasingly more divided during this president’s term in office but few conservatives really grasp his motivations. They erroneously think he hates America.

Obama has tried to remove what he considers to be, an American foot, pressing on the neck of the world.

His, so called, Apology Tour, was an opening salvo – telling the world that America would no longer be involved in imperialistic activities. It only makes sense that he would view England and Israel in the same imperialistic light and his animosity towards such activity is demonstrated in his actions.

His fundamental change philosophy is an attempt to ‘fix’ all the past indiscretions performed by the United States. Indeed, there have been a lot of tragic mistakes made during the forming of this American culture and a litany of condemnations were eagerly indoctrinated into a young mind by communists, anarchists, terrorists, and race provocateurs – but his indoctrination is not very different from what is preached and taught every day to children watching television, attending some Universities that are staffed with terrorists, or listening to religious sermons performed by clergy who hate American society. The news media also supports a negative view of our culture and laud the efforts of a president willing to do anything to redress the many wrongs performed by this nation. Many feel that the world’s greatest problem is a racist, Christian America, ruled by greedy capitalists.

Obama is successfully employing the tactics taught by Saul Alinsky in an effort to redress the wrongs of American society by rewriting history, redistributing wealth, indoctrinating children, and regulating every aspect of each citizen while making the general public more and more reliant on Government social care and feeding. Any approach is viable because “The Ends Justify the Means” and the control and domination of society by a large enlightened government is absolutely necessary in order for changes to take place without having a violent revolution.

Gun confiscation would be desirable if a majority can be convinced it is a good idea. (Terrorist attacks create a crisis that actually helps propel propaganda that demonizes weapons).

Obama’s actions are fundamentally changing America and his legacy will go on in schools, media, and in the progressive social dogma preached by indoctrinated parents, clergy, and politicians long after his term of office is relinquished.  Millions of followers believe his interpretation of history and the desire for change is not expressly hateful, regardless of how his realm is painted by protagonists. His large successes can be evidenced by the millions of supporters who will violently fight against anyone trying to remove the prescribed chains of regulations, control, and entitlements that they willingly put upon themselves and their children. Change can be good and while it is inevitable as a law of nature, the methods we employ should be questioned and evaluated before the process destroys the subject.

Spending Despite Representation

leave a comment »

Spending Despite Representation
Our framers considered that the congress should represent the citizens while the senate would represent the states. Money affairs were allocated to the people through the votes of their representatives, thus avoiding taxation without representation.
According to Article 1, Section. 7, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” It was the duty of the house to control the purse strings of our republic.
The inevitable outcome of our system of checks and balances encourages gridlock and inefficiency in government but it also encourages compromise and, in the past, it was successful at preventing the rise of tyranny in America. For example: No president can declare war without the funds to support such activity and thus the activity of war is determined by the representatives of the people. As Madison explains in the Federalist Papers, “Each branch of government is framed so that its power checks the power of the other two branches; additionally, each branch of government is dependent on the people, who are the source of legitimate authority.”
Within the branches of our government, congressional powers are divided between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Powers reserved to the Senate include approval of treaties, confirmation of presidential nominations, and the power to try impeachments, whereas only House has the authority to initiate impeachments and originate all revenue-raising bills.
Recently, we were faced with a potential gridlock where the executive branch joined with the Senate to fund bills established by a previous Congress. The gridlock potential was based upon the House of Representatives denying funds to support the Affordable Care Act, (ACA). The passing of the Affordable Care Act was initially instrumental in converting the House of Representatives from a Democrat Majority to a Republican Majority as the Democrats who supported the act were replaced by a majority of voters who disagreed with their representatives.
This new group of representatives voted to defund the ACA. Of course their vote never passed the Democrat dominated Senate and the gridlock became quite concrete. Our president, Democrat Senators and Representatives, allied with most of the News Agencies to denounce the House for doing the job they were elected to perform, that is, control the purse strings of the Republic.
To make matters worse, a stopgap budget bill needed to be passed by the end of September. Huge spending increases initiated by Democrats required additional funding and an approval of more deficit spending in order to borrow more money to pay for Democratic initiated programs that require more money than our country has or could lawfully borrow. (Stopgap bills are required since the Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget since 2009). Republican House members were alarmed because there has been no budget passed during the last four years and the national debt has increased by over 5.3 Trillion Dollars.
The House of Representatives had promised the American voters to lower spending, borrowing, and get our budget under control. The largest duck in the pond, regarding spending was the ACA and the house put forth a bill that would fund the government with the exclusion of the Affordable Care Act. The Senate disapproved. The liberals became mobilized to condemn Republicans for not funding  the ACA, calling them traitors, terrorists, hostage takers, saboteurs, arsonists, and murderers. The president joined in the name calling and the press was only too happy to absorb, join, and disseminate the progressive propaganda. The airwaves became flooded with misinformation, blaming the House for putting the nation at risk. The Senate spurned any House bill that would fund the government and avoid a shutdown. The Senate dictated that the House would fund ‘Obamacare’ or the Senate would vote for a government shutdown. Not only would the Senate veto any House bill, they would also blame the House for the results of the Senate vote that shutdown the government. They would allow no compromise.
At first, the House stood firm, facing the lies which spurred public perception to blame them if the government was forced to shut down. Meanwhile, the President continued with his policy to make Americans endure pain for daring to curtail his spending. He closed national parks, paying to barricade open parks that required no government expense. He kept veterans from their memorial. Treatments for Children with cancer provided by the National Institute of Health were curtailed, (Obama threatened to veto a Republican compromise to fund the Institutes). The liberal press continued to bombard the public with a creative and false description of Republican caused atrocities.
Eventually the House lost integrity from within and caved into the progressive agenda. The Checks and Balances put forth by our founding fathers will now require that the Senate and House must both be controlled if meaningful budget controls are ever to be enacted. The, Obama enacted, painful measures will hopefully, be set aside as the Americans have demonstrated appropriate fealty.
The National debt now stands at over 17 Trillion Dollars and the money presses are still running.

Our Alleged Two Party System of Government

leave a comment »

George Washington feared the new Republic might degenerate into a two-party system. In his farewell presidential speech George said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty”.
Our forefathers were Whigs who opposed the repressive governing of England while Tories opposed the revolutionaries and supported the King of England. After the revolution, Tories were excoriated, often tarred and feathered, and literally disappeared – some to Canada, others to England, while many were absorbed into the Whigs. The Whigs evolved into strong nationalists, (Federalists), and their opposition, (Anti-Federalists), who supported State equanimity. Later elections defeated the Federalists and gave rise to the Democrat – Republicans. It seems our history points out that whenever there is one party or group, it is only a matter of time before another group is born in opposition.
My point in mentioning this history is in trying to determine where I should belong within our current two-party system.
I have a base problem with Democrats initially concerning honest discourse. The Democrat leaders do not limit their speech to ‘Spin’ but have blatantly lied so often that it becomes impossible for me to support anything said by a Democrat without performing lengthy and arduous analysis in order to determine what is actually factual.
Republicans incorporate ‘Spin’ at a level that, although they have more credibility than the party they oppose, still require an arduous analysis in order to determine what is wholly exaggerated out of proportion vs. what is the factually supported synthesis of their argument.
Add to that our News Agencies, who at best, can only be trusted some of the time, but you never really know when that time occurs unless you perform a diligent and broad encompassing review of many news agencies in order to determine veracity.
For arguments sake, let us suppose we have opposing Democrats and Republicans who are both honest. Bear in mind that I only suggest this fiction in order to ally attributes to both parties. Both parties want high employment, clean air, generalized health care and safety net for all citizens, safe living conditions, national prosperity, and international safety. In almost all social areas it would seem as if both parties want the same things for America so perhaps the main differences are in what they choose to do in order to achieve their goals.
Democrats seem to want a strong government that passes laws and taxes meant to regulate citizen behavior. Republicans say they want a smaller government that limits federal regulation and keeps lower taxes but the last Republican President issued 643 new regulations while the new regime has only issued 613 in the same time period. While the lesser number of regulations can be argued as being more costly, there is hardly any supporting evidence that either party will choose to remove or curtail existing regulations. Republicans stand for lower taxes but no real tax reform has been issued by that party. It seems that the primary difference between our two parties is rhetoric. Each accuses the other of not liking Mom or American Apple pie. Both parties support progressive agendas.
Fear mongering is also rampant in both parties and most of it is absolute B.S. Most news agencies support the democrats in distributing what can only be described as propaganda so the heavier proportion of B.S. dissemination can be attributed to the News Party Democrats but Republicans have their own media outlets which ooze contrary opinions that are flushed into the bowl of public review. Of course, there are elements of published information that do contain some truths but the real differences between both parties are hidden and the most prominent feature excluded by all reports is how similar both parties are to each other.
There may be individual politicians who are law-abiding and honest but it is still difficult to determine the long-range differences between parties. Taken as a whole, I think both Republicans and Democrats are dishonest, self-serving, and composed mostly of people who are of the same elitist ilk. I would be hard pressed to smell the difference between party members. I can only be assured of a political stench.
Thomas Jefferson said, “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
I respect Tom but it seems that we shall be burdened by party politics for some time to come. Where do our citizens stand? Do they care? Where are the honest candidates? Is it even possible for an honorable and ethical person to compete against the lies and hypocrisy of our elected officials and their media? Have all the votes been purchased?
I like the idea of health care for everyone and have put forth suggestions that may accomplish that objective at a low-cost that includes all citizens, but my suggestion is dominated by State inception and control. I do like clean air but feel diesel fuel and coal can be more widely utilized. I believe the USA should be energy independent. We should have a tax system that involves everyone so everyone has an interest in taxation. I believe the internet should be used for political reform and candidate platform discussion. I believe voting via internet and the abolishment of all political advertising would allow more, (hopefully honest), candidates to seek political office. I do want fewer regulations, a balanced budget, and a decrease in the number of government agencies. I want no Czars.
Is this too much to ask? Is there anyone out there willing to run for office?

Written by poyhonen

October 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm