When is a Government not a Government? (Part 2 of 2)

     I pointed out in the first part of this series that government is not an objective reality like a table or a hill.  It's a social reality, like a friendship or any other agreement.  It exists only to the degree that people agree that it exists and only as long as people agree that it exists.

     The United States Constitution hasn't been observed in years.  Bit by bit, since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001, the Bill of Rights has been discarded.  On October 27, 2006, habeas corpus was outlawed after it had been the keystone of Western freedom for 794 years.  The same day, posse comitatus was outlawed after it was the law of the land for 128 years.  More recently, acting President Barack Obama taken upon himself the power to indefinitely detain accused Americans even after a jury has found them not guilty.

     The United States government has been usurped by an illegal regime consisting of Wall Street banksters, war profiteers, and their Judases in Congress.  Regardless of who gets elected, policies remain the same or get worse.  Besides, with touch-screen voting machines with easy-to-rig software, we have "elections" without ballots; thus, even legally mandated recounts are impossible, and fraud is difficult to prove.

     The good news is, the money changers who occupy the temple are not all powerful.  They have only two tools at their disposal: lies and violence.  Lies and violence, which are their only strengths, are also their biggest weaknesses; the more they use them, the weaker they get.  The forces of freedom have two tools of non-violence: truth and ideas, which help us to grow stronger the more we exercise them.

     It starts with a few people, such as US Army PFC Bradley Manning, simply saying, “No, I won’t cooperate with this any longer.” (link)    Then non-commissioned officers such as US Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman refuse to cooperate (link). Then officers, such as RAF Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith (link).  Before long, dozens of others refuse (link).

     Now middle-level officers are refusing to cooperate with illegal wars and other illegalities in the system.  Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a decorated US Army doctor who could have retired in two years has refused service in Afghanistan on the grounds that his alleged Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, was not legally elected President.  In the following video, corporate media Pharisee Anderson Cooper spouts distortion after distortion in his attempt to badger Dr. Lakin into making statements that might tend to incriminate him.  (video)

     Since the Lakin interview, Mr. Obama has released an electronic image purporting to be a long-form birth certificate.  Retired Major General Paul Vallely is calling the alleged long-form certificate the result of felony fraud, and that the fraud is being covered up by the FBI.  (video)

     (The 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen through illegal vote counts, and the 2008 election was stolen through felony fraud.  The United States has not had a legally elected President since January 20, 2001.) (link)

     The collapse of illegitimate regimes has been compared to the melting of an iceberg.  At first, a little melts here and there.  Then the melting accelerates.  Then, suddenly and unexpectedly, the whole thing collapses into slush. 

     The present attempts to steal the 2012 Republican primaries and caucuses could possibly be the event that causes the regime to collapse, driving the money changers from the temple, restoring the Constitution, and returning lawful government to the American people. (link) and (link)

     Every state in the Union legally mandates ballot recounts under certain conditions.  The trouble is, most American polling places no longer use ballots, so nothing can be recounted, and the accuracy of a computer program’s count can’t be verified.  An election without ballots is invalid.

     What recourse have we?  Consider this: What do people consider news?  What do they forward to others?  Answer: Something that’s current, pertains to their interests, and is visually striking.

     Suppose every supporter of Ron Paul in the primaries (and later, for any third party candidate in the election on the sixth of November) wore something strikingly green when he casts his ballot.  Diebold can lie boldly about how people voted, but they can’t lie about what the voters wear.  (I’ve checked in several different places.  At a given time, only four or five people out of a hundred wear an article of clothing that’s mainly green (and fewer still wear conspicuous green), though I suspect that most people have something green enough in their closets.  What if 15% or even 30% of the primary voters wore something strikingly green?  Visually striking evidence of election fraud could force an honest vote count. Otherwise, the resulting backlash could melt the iceberg and force state and local governments to conduct legal elections in America.

     I select the color green because it has several different meanings depending on the person, and it's usually seen as positive.  Take Ireland during the 1790's, for example.  The English outlawed all things that they took to be symbols of Irish nationalism: St. Patrick's Day commemorations, displays of shamrocks, and even wearing green.  As a consequence, the "wearing of the green" has become a symbol of resistance to oppression. (song) 

     The false witnesses in the corporate-controlled media would be loathe to cover a story of voters wearing green to the polls to show their defiance of both the Democrat and Republican parties.  As the story spread by word of mouth and through the Internet, the corporate-owned media’s already shaky credibility would risk complete collapse.
     Larger numbers of Americans will vote in the presidential election on the sixth of November.  We have more time to get out the word for that election.  Voters in the general election can wear something conspicuously green to show that they're voting for someone other than the Republican or Democratic nominee for President.  I say again, Diebold can lie boldly about how you vote but not about what you wear.  People can thus know if the vote is honestly counted.

     Let me further remind you that the power of the criminal elite comes only from lies and violence.  We have truth and ideas.  We don’t have to fight them.  The criminal elite can use violence to destroy our bodies, but they can’t destroy ideas.  The concept of a government exercising its just powers by the consent of the governed is an unstoppable idea.  If we withdraw our consent, uniting with one another in peace and mutual understanding, we can restore our constitutionally guaranteed liberties.  
     I have no illusions that one campaign of this sort will result in total victory on the sixth of November.  It's at best a beginning.  Conversely, I strongly advise those who believe in the myth of "strategic voting" to shed the illusion that electing the "lesser of two evils" can result in anything other than evil.  (See "The Only Strategic Voting that Works")

REMEMBER the sixth of November.

Wear green when you vote for a third-party candidate  for President.

The Republican Presidential Nomination is Being Stolen! (Part 2)

     (This is part two of a two-part article about vote fraud and potential vote fraud in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, and the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Today, we treat the South Carolina primaries, repeating the last two paragraphs of yesterdays's article.)

     We also know that around 90% of New Hampshire’s ballots are cast via a form of gambling called e-voting. Their machines are programmed by a company that has already been found guilty of criminal behavior and convictions. (here)

     In South Carolina it was worse. The usual suspects programmed 100% of the voting machines. (here)  That amounts to 100% faith-based voting.

     The Internet is buzzing with talk that 953 posthumous ballots were cast in the recent South Carolina Republican Party primary. Actually, this news item was based on a letter that S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote to U.S. Attorney two days before the primary. He wrote that, in recent elections, 953 such ballots had been cast in “recent elections.” Additionally, he wrote that 4,965 ballots had been cast by voters who were no longer qualified to vote because they had moved from the state. We’re talking about a total of 5,918 illegal ballots. Wilson was concerned that this may also happen in the 2012 Republican Party primary. (link to PDF) 

     Did it? It’s hard to say just yet, but several anomalies and irregularities have come to light.

     In the video The Ron Paul Fix is In, the narrator points out that Newt Gingrich, who went on to “win” the South Carolina primary, had to cancel a Charleston engagement due to lack of interest. At the same time, Ron Paul attracted over 1,000 supporters in the Holy City (a sobriquet for Charleston).

     That, by itself, would not be enough to convince me that something was rotten in the Palmetto State (another sobriquet). After all, the “lesser of two evils”—the other being Mitt Romney—doesn’t generate the same level of enthusiasm as “the President America needs.”

     Admit it: The only reason I’ve ever heard anyone give for “supporting” Romney or Gingrich is the belief that one or the other has the best chance of beating Obama in the November presidential election. I’ve even heard people say with astonishing shortsightedness that beating Obama was their “ultimate goal.” Actually, it barely qualifies as a short-term goal. A long-term goal should be to elect the kind of President that America needs. A longer-term goal should be to bring about a better future for America. The ultimate goal should be of a religious nature.

     What I found particularly suspicious was the reported behavior of the people who “tallied” the vote. At poll watcher Christopher Lawton reported many suspicious irregularities at many precincts all over the state, as it was with the count in Iowa and New Hampshire, if irregularities were the rule in one precinct, it’s reasonable to wonder about the other precincts. (link)

     No one is saying that the Gingrich campaign had anything to do with the voting irregularities in South Carolina. Voter fraud could have been more strategic than that.

     As long as Ron Paul is in the race, two other candidates must also be in the race for vote fraud to be harder to detect. No one would have believed that a majority of South Carolinians would vote for disaster capitalist Mitt Romney, a nose-in-the-air elitist who amassed a $240 billion fortune by buying up businesses and crashing them—the sort of thing Goldman Sachs does to whole countries such as the U.S. and Greece. (here) 

     Enter Newt Gingrich, whose platform on virtually every issue is the opposite of his actual self—kind of like Zorro in reverse. Zorro feigned weakness to disguise his heroic self. Gingrich feigns a heroic persona to disguise the opposite.

Military adventures overseas? When Gingrich was of draft age during the Vietnam War, he avoided having to take a moral stand for or against the war. In short, his actual self is a selfish coward.

     Family values? Ha! That’s like Jeffrey Dahmer posing as a vegetarian.

     A super patriot? Not the way he genuflects before the Israeli government and vigorously advocates using American servicemen as janissaries for that regime.

     Limited government? Not the way the military-industrial complex borrows and spends our money with his blessings.

     Fiscal responsibility? He was a hired hit man for Fannie Mae. If you liked the 2007-2008 housing and credit collapse, you’ll love Newt Gingrich.

     Honesty? He lies so much that he has to get somebody else to call his dog for him.  Not even Congress, in which so much corruption takes place that it's scarcely noticed, could stomach his conflicts of interest.  They censured him for corruption in 1997, when he was Speaker of the House.

     Because Newt Gingrich talks a good game, even with all his noxious faults, he makes a more convincing designated winner than the patronizing, high-pressure salesman Mitt Romney. Romney comes across as so stuck up that he runs the risk of drowning when it rains.

     At this writing, the Florida primary has just ended, and—if "news" reports are to be believed—the silver spoon cruncher trounced the Grinch 46.4% to 31.9%, with Sanitarium and St. Paul trailing behind with 13.4% and 7.0% of the vote, respectively.
     Since no more than 5% of the delegates have been gathered, we can be sure that Romney and either Gingrich or Santorum will remain in the race, if only to maintain the illusion that Ron Paul isn't getting enough votes to be taken seriously.  After all, if it were a two-man race between  Romney and Paul, the vote fraudsters would have only two alternatives—either of which would wreck their well-cultivated myth that Ron Paul is just a fringe candidate.  Either they could award Romney more than 90% of the votes, which even the most gullible citizens would question; or they could make it a 70%-30% split, which would place Paul too close to the mainstream to be ignored at the national convention during the final week of August.
     For this reason, we can be sure that either Santorum or Gingrich will stay in the race to provide protective camouflage for vote thieves.  Those of you who live in states that have not yet had primaries or caucuses must watch them carefully. It’s not enough to read their lips; watch their hands.

End Game for Taiwan? Part 2: Threats to Taiwan's Sovereignty

     In 2004, Chen Sui-bian was re-elected, and KMT supporters (shall we say) “gave the appearance of” trying to get him to resign on charges of corruption. I’ve never liked Chen Sui-bian, and I do believe that he was as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. He reminds me of the fence that was so crooked that, when a pig tried to jump through a hole in the fence, he kept landing on the same side of the fence. Nonetheless, if find the accusations ironic coming from the KMT.

     Cross-strait politics can be quite surreal.  Beijing has no objection to the KMT claiming that their regime governs not only Taiwan but all of China, Mongolia (including Outer Mongolia, which is independent of both China and Taiwan), Tibet, East Turkestan,  and Hong Kong; but they fly into paroxysms of rage when a Taiwanese politician claims that Taiwan governs only Taiwan.  

     There's a simple explanation for this.  (Maybe you've seen the Keebler cookies commercials.)  If a marketer of junk food were to claim that his cookies were healthy for you, the Food and Drug Administration would attack them with the full force of the law.  That's because they fear that somebody might believe that it's true.  On the other hand, Keebler can get away with saying that their cookies are baked by elves in hollow trees, because no one could possibly believe it.  It's the same way with claims of Taiwan independence versus claims of a vast "Chinese" empire with Taipei as its capital city.

     In politics, there are many kinds of horses. Some are show horses; some are work horses; and some Trojan horses; some are a horse of a different color. Chen Sui-bian was a race horse. He conducted his administration as if it were a race for public office; it was a public office he had already won. For eight wasted years, he pulled stunts to rally the party faithful and little else. His divisive stunts served only to solidify support from his core supporters, alienate potential supporters, and do little or nothing to deepen Taiwan’s sovereignty.

     In 2008, Chinese native Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign for the presidency was so image-driven that would put Nike and Amway to shame. Ma was elected president of Taiwan and the fantasy of Ma being president of all of China, Tibet, and so on, reached ultra-surrealistic proportions. That is, when no Chinese were around.

     I’m sure you’ve seen five-year-olds playing games of make believe. In their world of make believe, a child can be—well—the emperor of China, and other children can be other members of royalty. As soon as an adult enters the room, the fantasy disappears.

     That’s what happens when even a lowly Chinese official comes to Taiwan. ROC flags disappear, music stores playing songs in the Taiwanese language are forced to close, Taiwanese demonstrators are relocated to a spot well out of sight, and President Ma suddenly becomes “Mr. Ma” to his guest. His guest, who is less than nobody back in his native China, received the red carpet treatment in Taiwan. Taiwan’s highest government official becomes subservient to China’s lowest government official.

     Over the past few years, Ma has made around fifteen secret agreements with China. More publicly, the KMT-controlled legislature approved an agreement called ECFA, which gives Beijing substantial control over Taiwan’s export economy. Ma excused his actions by claiming that the agreement was economic rather than political. Of course, we all know that control over a vast segment of a nation’s economy amounts to control over that nation.

     During the 2008 campaign, Ma had promised not to enter political negotiations with Beijing during his first term of office. On the other hand, Ma’s promises have never seemed an impediment to Ma, and neither has public opinion. He once said that he didn’t have to listen to public opinion because the voters had given him a mandate (58%).

     Originally, the 2012 presidential election was scheduled for March 2012.  The Chinese Nationalist Party is now making noises about holding the election on Robert E. Lee's birthday, January 19.  

     The excuse given for the change is that it would save the taxpayers NT$500,000  (about US$17,000) to hold both the December 2011 legislative elections and the 2012 presidential election on the same day.  

     Left unmentioned is that Sometime-president Ma is also proposing to raise the salaries of government bureaucrats (the most likely KMT supporters) a total of NT$2 billion, during a time when wages for the rest of Taiwan have remained nearly stagnant for ten years.  Left unmentioned, is that young people (the most likely DPP supporters) reaching voting age between January and March will not be allowed to vote.  Left unmentioned is that combining the two elections would attract more lukewarm voters (the most likely KMT supporters).

     Ma spent several years promoting the expansion of a major polluting petrochemical plant in a wetlands area, against the wishes of people living in the area.  Now that it has become a major issue in the 2012 campaign, Ma has come out against the plant.  No problem.  When he loses the 2012 election, he'll have four months to change all that.

     There is also a movement afoot to allow absentee voting for businessmen in China.  Given  Beijing's desire to control Taiwan at all costs, this is an open invitation to voter fraud.

     The January 2012 presidential election is only nine months away. Ma’s popularity is below that of either of his potential opponents, and it’s continuing to drop. Small wonder, then, that Beijing is now pressuring Ma to enter political negotiations with them. That’s shorthand for surrendering Taiwan to Beijing before Ma is booted out of office.  With more than four months between the election and the inauguration of the next president, Ma Ying-jeou will be at liberty to pull all manner of shenanigans at the expense of Taiwan's hard-won freedoms.

     The KMT-controlled legislature has consistently blocked Taiwan’s purchases of defensive weapons, for the past ten years. (Only now, after the KMT has lost most of the bi-elections, and with the presidential election less than a year away , the KMT is making a show of bidding for purchases.) As a result, Beijing now has the military capability to invade and take over Taiwan. All Beijing lacks is a pretext.

     If Ma and his KMT revert to type, one of three things may happen. Either they will rush to turn over Taiwan to China before the January 2012 election, or they will presume to turn over Taiwan after the election but before President-elect Tsai Ying-wen is inaugurated president, or they will riot as they did in 2000 and give the Chicoms the pretext that they’re invading Taiwan to restore order. They didn’t have the military capability to take over Taiwan in 2000. Thanks to KMT blockages of Taiwanese arms purchases, they now have that capability.

     In any of those three scenarios, it would be hard to imagine the KMT not arranging to maintain perpetual rule over Taiwan with Beijing’s blessing and guidance. Only the vigilance and will of the Taiwanese can prevent any of these scenarios from becoming a reality.

End Game for Taiwan? Part 1: Taiwan's Painful Path to Freedom

     When delusion crashes headlong into reality, the result is always messy and painful. When people cling to delusion even after sixty years of colliding with painful and messy realities, the result is bizarre.

     The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which ruled over Taiwan from 1945 until 2000, is all but certain to get kicked out of office again in the March 2012 presidential election. Respecting the outcomes of elections is not a KMT virtue. Many observers in Taiwan fear that, President Ma Ying-jeou (pictured at left) will make major moves to betray Taiwan to Taiwan's enemies in Beijing before he is removed from office.

     To better understand this situation and the KMT’s bizarre concept of reality, it’s necessary for me to give a quick review of Taiwan’s 51-year-long (1945-1996), painful path to freedom and limited government.

     At the end of the Second World War, General Douglas MacArthur ordered Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to effect the military occupation of Taiwan, which was then a part of Japan. When Chiang did so, he proclaimed that Taiwan had been returned to China, and his Chinese Nationalist Party dubbed that date a Chinese holiday called “Retrocession Day.”

     That was the beginning of a dangerous delusion that now threatens the existence of Taiwan as a sovereign nation.

     By 1947, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had imposed martial law and the White Terror on the unfortunate people of Taiwan. Over the next 37 years—the longest period of martial law in world history—they would kill 30,000 Taiwanese. The KMT kleptocracy would also drive Taiwan’s vibrant economy into the toilet.

     That same year, Chiang presumed to impose his self-serving “constitution” on all of China, Tibet, East Turkistan, Hong Kong, all of Mongolia (including Outer Mongolia, which is independent of China even to this day), and somehow Taiwan. Chiang’s constitution claimed that the borders of China could not be changed except by constitutional amendment. Since, under international law, Taiwan was not a part of China, a conventional interpretation of that constitution would be that Taiwan could not become part of the Republic of China (ROC) except by constitutional amendment.

     What made Chiang’s constitution especially risible was that it presumed to rule areas that it did not rule and that it forbade Chiang to rule Taiwan, which was the only large land mass that Chiang did, in fact, rule. Thus, under Chiang’s constitution, the ROC did not exist except on the tiny island groupings of Jinmen and Ma-tsu.

     By 1949, the Republic of China was completely driven out of China and replaced by an even worse regime, the badly misnamed People’s Republic of China.

     In September 1951, Japan signed the San Francisco Treaty. As a term of that treaty, Japan gave up all claim to Taiwan without specifying which country, if any, would receive it. When Japan signed a similar treaty with the defunct Republic of China, Chiang’s representative insisted that Japan specifically grant Taiwan to the defunct ROC.

     Citing international law and common sense, the Japanese told Chiang’s henchman that Japan could not give what it no longer had. Ever since then, the KMT has made two risible and contradictory claims.

     One was the claim that the Japanese had really intended to give Taiwan to the ROC; therefore, the ROC had a legal claim to Taiwan. “ROC President” Ma Ying-jeou, who made that astonishing claim, holds a doctorate in jurisprudence from Harvard University.

     The other claim was that, Taiwan was “returned to the ROC” on the day that Chiang arrived.; thus, a treaty wasn’t necessary after all. In case you’re confused by that phrase “returned to China,” I’ll try to explain.

     After China lost the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, the Ch’ing Dynasty gave up Taiwan to Japan “in perpetuity.” In 1912, the Ch’ings abdicated, leaving the ROC in charge of China. Remember that part: Taiwan ceased to be a part of China even before the ROC existed. In spite of the fact that the ROC never ruled all of China and ceased to rule any of it (other than Jinmen and Ma-tzu) after 1949, the KMT (Chinese Nationalist Party) claims that they really do rule China. In this fantasy world, the PRC (which has obviously ruled China since 1949) doesn’t exist, and the ROC really is China.
     In December 1979, the United States government "de-recognized" Taiwan and stopped using tax dollars to prop up the Chiang regime.  Contrary to what one might expect, after the U.S. turned off the money spigot, Taiwan's economic miracle began.

     In 1987, martial law officially ended, but other repressive laws were put in place so that the KMT wouldn’t suffer post-partum depression. Lee Teng-hui, a native Taiwanese, (pictured at left) became vice president. Virtually all positions of power in Taiwan, though, remained in the hands of Chinese.

     In 1988, Chiang Ching-kuo, the son of Chiang Kai-shek died, and the unthinkable happened: Taiwan was suddenly under the control of Lee Teng-hui, who hated the KMT but had the wisdom to keep his mouth shut about it until he had gained the presidency.

     Under Lee, the constitution was amended to allow for elections. Lee was elected president in 1996.

     In 2000, another unthinkable event occurred: A three-way split resulted in the election of Chen Shui-bian, a native Taiwanese who was a member of the opposition party. For the first time since 1945, Taiwan’s presidency was no longer in the hands of the Chinese Nationalist Party, though the KMT retained control over the legislature.

     Unlike the United States, where the Democrats and Republicans resemble a sock-puppet show, in which one person’s hands manipulate both puppets, Taiwan really does have a two-party system.
     The pan-blue parties—that is, the KMT, a splinter group called the New Party, and a largely one-man show calling itself the People First Party—seemed to accept that it had shot itself in the foot. It spent the next four years blocking the new president’s efforts, even those that the KMT had championed when it occupied the presidency. Apart from these childish antics, the KMT bided its time until the 2004 election. It vowed not to make the same mistake twice.
     Then yet another unthinkable event occurred: Chen Sui-bian was re-elected by an outright majority.

     Chinese Nationalist Party supporters, who seemed to believe that Taiwan would always be theirs to rule and rob, rioted in the streets.  Some people might say that the rioters were trying to overthrow the government, but Taiwan’s libel laws (written and passed by the KMT) forbid such conclusions as this. For that reason, you won’t hear it from me. I do wonder, though, what KMT supporters were trying to do when they gave the appearance of storming the barricades around the Presidential Office Building.

     It’s hard to avoid the conclusion, though, that the Chinese Nationalist Party has a third-world concept of elections: that elections are only window dressing for self-styled and self-serving rulers who will rule or ruin.  It's getting harder to tell the Chinese Nationalist Party from the Chinese Communist Party.

(To be continued)