You might think that comparing these 3 concepts is like comparing apples to oranges and
bananas. But, it's not. This topic really has to do with studying the organization of
government, the strategies considered in leading and controlling a population, as well as
interpreting the responsibilities of government in national and international affairs.
I could easily relate how the Bush Administration's economic policies and proposals
relate to all these things, but I'll cover that more in another chapter.
Let's begin the discussion with the organization of Europe.
When you look at a map, you can see that greater Europe is divided into numerous small
autonomous nations. It would be easy to rationalize that each of these nations are
a community of people who have chosen to organize as separate states because of
differences in customs and traditions, religions and other preferences. It also
reflects geographic divisions and obstacles, commonality of economic development concerns
(agro-business vs industrialization, etc) and the ability to provide military defense.
As a governmental organization, or, as a regional superpower, the collection of smaller
nations is preferred because it reduces or suppreses the ability of one nation to attack
another militarily or economically. Further, few of these nations are truly
self-sufficient in terms of commerce, agriculture and industrial capacities.
Their inter-dependence provides an environment that encourages and/or requires
international cooperation and resolution of international differences. They do not
have the luxury of saying "you're either with us or against us".
By dividing the continent into smaller national factions, the regional superpower does
not have to be as concerned with the possibility of massive forces succesfully organizing
and rebelling against it.
The phrase "there's safety in numbers" is therefore nullified, insofar as
individual citizens and smaller nations are concerned. The "numbers" have been
divided, and as such, are conquered.
The Organization of the United States
In many ways, the United States were originally organized in much the same ways.
The idea was that we had an immense country to inhabit, and, as the population
increased, settlers would move further and further to the uncontrolled and more remote
areas of the country. As those people pioneered the frontiers, it was also assumed that
they would organize governments in order to promote development and protect the citizens.
The individual states would have a great deal of control over the laws and practices of
their designated borders. In this way, true communities of people with common
interests and goals could direct their own futures and lifestyles.
Of course, that was long before instantaneous communications and high-speed travel.
Therefore, self-sufficiency was a necessity at the local and state/regional levels.
This could be described as an organizational premise that honors the concept of
States' Rights, which, in its truest form, is a legitimate consideration. Because of
the Civil War and the issue and methods that triggered it, States' Rights have become
primarily associated with slavery and racism.
I don't wish to diminish those issues, but they were a part of a greater debate
regarding the right of people to govern themselves, and the fact that the closer a
provider is to its constituents, the more efficient and effective they can be in
administering to the needs of the people they serve.
Greater polarization occurred as the result of political interests seeking to find a
voting stronghold in the citizens who agreed with slavery and racist practices, just as
Democrats today are sometimes accused of taking the black voter for granted.
(After all, Republicans led the North in the war against the South, and they had to
develop a strategy with which to foster new ties and support within the Confederate
population. In my mind, both Republicans and Democrats have gone too far in purposely
isolating and further dividing the factions involved in these issues in order to
compensate for their positions in the Civil War. The overall result has been the
perpetuation of oppression for political reasons, even when individual politicans disagree
with racist policies.)
States' Rights & the New World Order
The premise of the New World Order is very similar to that of States' Rights. In
many ways, it's like taking a brand name like Enron that's become tarnished, and changing
the name so that most people won't know that they're that company. Instead
of States' Rights, they've renamed it The New World Order.
It's not about racism or bigotry. It's about control and money. But, instead of
informing the American people of the changes that would need to occur in order to
facilitate this grand vision, it is being installed in the name of tax breaks and getting
rid of big government.
It includes free-market economics, and it has the sound of something great. However,
the question is, will you be prepared for it?
Have you considered the impact that reducing big government will have on your life?
They have not been particularly forthcoming about the additional taxes and expenses
that you will be paying on the state level. That's becoming more evident everyday as
states deal with rising deficits and dwindling resources and assistance from the Federal
Government.
Local leaders, fearing the loss of votes, will allow systems to degrade and will
cancel non-essential services rather than raise taxes.
On the Federal level, leaders will be able to claim less taxation and smaller
government.
State and local governments will be brutalized by citizens complaining about the lack
of services, or what appears to be sudden, extreme tax increases.
It is also inevitable that these leaders will privatize the delivery of essential
services in order to avoid raising taxes.
When that happens, you could say that the plan worked.
While you may pay less in federal taxes, you will spend more in order to facilitate
guaranteed or unregulated profits by the corporations that assume the
"responsibility". While that may seem like a good idea, remember that businesses
are primarily in the business of turning a profit. Delivering services will cut into their
profits.
This re-assignment of the government's responsibility to corporations to provide
essential services will include water and energy distribution (the activities of Enron and
the California energy frauds should supply you with an indication of how unregulated
commerce abuses the privilege. Further studies on what has occurred in South America due
to U.S. promoted privatizations would make you very, very nervous).
In Arizona, they have actually mortgaged public properties and future earnngs of their
lottery systems in order to avoid raising taxes to make up for their deficits.(I think of
it as more of a layaway program.)
Now, in many ways, I could agree with the need to re-consider States' Rights. I
believe there are legitimate discussions and advantages, so long as it is not
mis-construed as an opportunity to implement racist, bigoted or economically advantageous
policies which are not in the best interests of all citizens. Further, that basic
rights and privileges such as liberty, legal representation, equal opportunity and
separation of church and state should absolutely apply.
Centralized government allows for uniform applications of legislation and enforcement
of laws enacted to preserve the premises that comprised the foundations of this country.
As citizens, we have a responsibility to honor them and cause them. As citizens, we
actually claim to agree on that.
Questioning the Commitment of Believers In States' Rights
Here's an interesting test of whether those who propose the de-centralizization of
government actually believe in what they call for. What will be more interesting is
how it's very possible that they'll exploit this very issue as a false means to prove
their commitment.
If the Bush Administration and the "GOP Agenda" truly believes in the rights
of the states to govern themselves, then why does the Department of Justice
prosecute doctors and individuals who are in compliance with state laws which permit, and
sometimes sponsor, the use of medicinal marijuana?
In one recent California case, a marijuana grower was convicted in Federal Court. This
man, based on Federal Statute, was not allowed, in any way, shape or form, to provide
legitimate information to the jury that convicted him, that he was doing so in accordance
with state law, and, in fact, in cooperation with local authorities administering
medicinal marijuana programs.
The jury was informed after the trial, and immediately became activists to overturn his
conviction. They did not like having convicted a man due to a predjudice of the
current Federal Administration, and a nuance of the law that enables the suppression of
certain kinds of relevant evidence at the discretion of the prosecutor.
9 states have approved the use of medicinal marijuana. But, apparently, the
proponents of states rights have a personal preference against marijuana, and will not
allow the states to govern themselves on these matters because "they can only govern
themselves if they agree with us". It's hypocrisy.
The obvious hypocrisy of this stance by the current administration may well be spun
into their own arguement for States' Rights. In other words, they may indeed allow the
legalization of marijuana in order to convince you that they do, indeed, support States'
Rights.
It might interest you to know that Milton Friedman, the man who is considered the
modern-day guru of Free Market Economics and "returning authority to the
states", has already agreed to the idea of legalizing marijuana.
Imagine the political pandering to more than 30% of Americans (more than 80
million citizens) who typically vote for the legalization of marijuana. I call it
pandering, because politicians know that
1) the war on dugs has failed, and that marijuana is not the danger it has been
portrayed to be and
2) strategic timing of legalization could cause them to gain more support for their
policies of privatization and governmental decentralization on an issue they've already
privately surrendered.
Even more the 700,000 people arrested every year would like it, and the government
could save an extra $10 billion per year too. In late 2002, high school students
polled said it was easier to get marijuana than it was to get cigarettes.
I'll deal with the specific issues of drug use at a later time. But, marijuana
provides a good example of how partisan politics, not the public interest or the will of
the people, determines the carrots and sticks the government uses to get us to go along
with other policies.
It's not compromise. It's manipulation. It's about control and advantage, not
liberty.
What's That Got To Do With The New World Order?
In the simplest sense, the New World Order is a global implementation of the more
politicized and militarily enforced theory of States' Rights. I say more politicized,
because it has all the same legitmate arguements contained in that of States' Rights, but
because of the relationship between wealth and power, it is corrupted by the priority of
fulfilling corporate interests first.
You may have noticed that every speech given bout the New World Order has included a
call for volunteerism. I have a great deal of respect for the concept of volunteerism. But
it should not replace the responsibility of the government to ensure the well being of its
citizens. Nor should should it be used to flatter Americans regarding their
compassion as a means to garner votes.
A thousand points of light paints a pretty picture with words, but is simply an
ambiguous way of informing Americans that "you're on your own."
Ultimately, that will leave the Federal government with one main purpose: to conduct
military operations against those countries and peoples who either refuse to comply with
the imposed terms of the superpower, or to suppress dissidence.
This is exemplified by the United States current actions and representations of the
events in Cuba. As in the case of the Bay of Pigs, the United States has dispatched
people to incite and fund dissidents in Cuba in order to undermine and overthrow the
government of Cuba. Cuba then takes what I will agree is severe action in
disciplining its citizens, only to have the United States claim that Cuba's actions are
solely for the purpose of suppressing dissidents.
George Bush has always actively sought the Cuban vote in Florida. It's important
politically for Jeb as well. In fact, in May 2002, Mr. Bush went to Florida to
campaign for his brother and challenged Fidel Castro to hold free elections and
"listen to the voices of the people and count their votes."
Given the fiasco of the 2000 elections and the millions of people who have not
forgotten, I believe it was a brazenly insensitive statement to make... but, it certainly
spoke to the hearts of those Cuban people in the audience. That was pandering.
If Cuba sent agents to the United States for the purpose of undermining our government
and causing an insurrection, those Cubans would be charged with espionage, and the U.S.
citizens who worked with them could easily be charged with treason. The hyposcrisy is
glaring, and the propaganda used to deceive you is unforgiveable.
The same thing is true in Venzuela under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. You may
not know this, but Chavez has been in favor of OPEC regulating oil supplies in order to
keep prices higher, in order to protect the economic interests of his and other countries.
As they have a legitimate right to do.
The Bush Administration has clearly opposed his policies, and was instrumental in the
organization and execution of a failed coup against him. 2 of the Venezuelans
involved in that coup, the last I checked, are now residents of Florida. The leader of the
coup, oil executive Pedro Carmona, was given safe passage to, and asylum in Colombia.
Ultimately, what I am saying is that the guise of free market economics and States'
Rights is being used to wage economic wars of domination upon other countries, and
economic wars of suppression against individual citizens, political figures, unions and
all other means for private citizens to unite for or against any particular issue.
In addition, the war on terrorism and the fear generated by the rhetoric used to cause
support for it, furthers the suppression of opposition via monitoring of the books being
read by citizens, wiretaps, monitoring of email, public exposition of police records of
citizens investigated because of their dissidence (regardless of whether they have done
anything wrong)... more and more methods are being introduced in Patriot Act II.
One of the favorite tactics of federal law enforcement since the Nixon years was to
infiltrate legitimate, legal opposition groups, and actually sabotaging their activities.
That practice was discontinued in 1989 (just prior to the Presidential campaign and
the end of the George HW Bush Adminsistration), but has been revived under the Patriot
Act.
These methods are, of course, justified by the purported imminent threat of terrorism.
During the McCarthy days, it was the threat of communism. It included blacklisting
of entertainers and propagandist campaigns to portray dissenters as un-patriotic.
In the late 60's and 70's, it was aimed at leaders and supporters of Civil Rights
Groups. In particular, the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers began as a
non-violent social movement. It spun-off a more militant arm after Federal
infiltration constantly interfered with their legitimate activities. Federal
officials successfully frustrated some participants to the point of violence, and then
used propaganda to wrongfully portray them all as violent dangers to society.
For more information on this sort of activity, look up COINTELPRO and OPERATION
BROWNTOE in your favorite interenet search engine. Or, view the movie "All Power To
The People".
The New World Order may, in theory, be a reasonable organization of the way the world
could work. The unfortunate reality is that, because of corruption by the power of wealth,
it has merely become a scheme of economic policies that benefit the wealthy and
multinational corporate interests.
Like the conditions and policies that led to the Civil War, these policies would
benefit the wealthiest, and require citizens to enforce unpopular or corrupt policies out
of fear for economic retribution (in the form of lawsuits, blacklisting, firing and denial
of entitlements).
There would be many ways to create mutually beneficial methods of implementing
free-market economics and "The New World Order" if we could be assured that the
intent was to create an even playing field. Unfortunately, the record proves
otherwise.
I say it is up to the corporations, and political leaders who are supported by them, to
prove their intent in the matter. Without that proof, they should not expect
citizens to support their policies without dissent. And, dissenters should prepare
themselves for further political and economic persecution.
Frankly, I believe this issue has the potential to generate Civil War, just as it did
before. Only, this time, it could occur on a global level, independently or in
concert, from state to state, person to person and nation to nation.
Peace by oppression is not peace, it is a challenge to those oppressed to "do
something about it". History repeats itself, and history shows that the people
always rise up and prevail against oppressive forces, no matter how long it takes, no
matter what means it requires.
That reality is but one part of what needs to be acknowledged and addressed as our
leaders seek to install this new way of life and governmental paradigm, without our
understanding or permission.
The idea that our Constitution makes no promises of entitlements or specific liberties
is ludicrous demagoguery. To suggest that a Democracy can be manipulated into the
political agendas for advantage and preference is imagineable when law can be
interpretated in a way that subverts the intent of the law.
Time and time again, history has provided example after example of leaders who have
gone astray or have been misled, where trust and blind obedience have been used as tools
against the citizens. And it was always based on arguements with plausibility and
deniability, the ability to deflect criticism and blame.
It is time for us to re-examine what our leaders are asking us to believe and to do,
and consider what it is we actually want as citizens and as individuals, and make certain
that the will of the people has not been laid victim to skillful linguistics by leaders
and the conservative media in order to polarize you and cause you to accept what is
occurring, despite the unkept promises and divisive political tactics that have been used.
And, we should demand that our government, and those leading it, inform us the kinds of
choices and changes in play toward the future of the United States and Global Economies,
and the direct economic impacts and shifts in tax burdens required to reshape America into
the desired free-market "U.S. Alliance of Sovereign States" they have in mind.
If we are truly a Nation of United States, then we must come to terms with who we are
as a nation, as citizens, as individuals, and find ways to co-exist with each without
encroaching on each other's personal freedoms, and with respect shown to customs and
traditions, and extend that respect and dignity to other nations as well. That is at the
heart of the compassion that makes this such a great nation of people.
We can only do this when we are informed. When we are informed - of the truth -
Americans have a way of making the right decision.
Footnotes
-House passes Head Start changes
Much of the bill is bipartisan but the Democrats strenuously objected to giving grants to
eight states to run their own Head Start programs, free of many of the federal guidelines
and standards. Democrats argued that block grants are the first step toward dismantling
the popular program. The proposal is part of a series of Bush
administration initiatives to shift more of the responsibility for social programs from
Washington to the states. Democrats also unsuccessfully sought to strike a
provision that allows the use of federal funds to hire and fire Head Start teachers and
aides based on religion. Under current law, churches and other faith-based groups can and
do run Head Start programs but cannot take religion into account in hiring.
No contact method available at this time due to spamming of this
site
(C) 2002,2003-2009 Charles Rehn Jr IV All rights
reserved
