Living in Fear: Politicians Are Using Fear to Control the Masses
- 4
- Add a Comment
- Obama Challenges America: Where Are You?
- Racial Bigotry? Its Time Is Past: Vote Obama for President
- Obama Offers Hope of Restoring America to Greatness
- Could World War III be on the Horizon as the World’s Access to Cheap Oil Nears Its End?
- Obama Offers an Opportunity to Create a Government for the People
One only has to have lived during the Cold War to remember the indoctrination we received as Children regarding Communism. Being educated in a parochial school we received weekly cartoon handouts on how our lives would be destroyed if the evil Communist dictators ever took over America. Then that was cemented in our thinking by the call for bomb shelters and bomb drills that took place monthly.
However, in the 1990s the Communist block dissolved and nuclear arsenals were supposedly dismantled. Desert Storm quickly took care of the threat of Iraqi expansion into Kuwait so America’s biggest fears and enemies disappeared. We were safe.
The question then occurred to politicians about how to keep control of the masses and force allegiance to specific political parties. Ah ha, why not give Americans and the world something scientific to worry about. How about global warming? The environment is always a good way to get people concerned about the food they eat, the water they drink and the air they breathe. The government could then become responsible for cleaning it all up.
Then fortunately, for the politicians, Al Quida steps into the picture by bombing the World Trade Center and America has a new enemy to fear. Let’s start a war on terrorism, in general. It seemed to most Americans that Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi native, member of the royal family, along with Al Quida would have been the logical target. In fact, as reported in the New York Times on July 11,2002, bin Laden died in December 2001 and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan.
With that information came a need to strengthen President Bush’s position so Saddam Hussein, who coincidentally had put out a hit on the first President Bush became the target of choice. Iraq, a once stable country with a viable economy was now targeted as a center for weapons of mass destruction and after 9/11 Americans were willing to buy whatever the government told them. Sadly, this again was a ruse to keep the American public frightened and under control. Remember when Bush wanted to remove term limits on the Presidency.
I believe that what the Bush Administration’s term will show to history is how one president, who refused to listen to reason has single-handedly nearly brought America to its knees.
Thanks to his legacy America is now in trillions of dollars of debt, has a failing economy, is a world laughing stock and has spread its military so thin it is unable to respond to current crises. Now, we are told that Iran is also a threat. Are you afraid yet? Will your children see adulthood? Is Armageddon on the horizon? If so we have the leadership of the present administration to thank.
In reality, our concerns might wish to focus on border control, getting medical care for our citizens, schooling our children so that they can compete on the world stage, and improving our economy so that the average citizen doesn’t have to worry about losing their homes or feeding their children.
The trillions of dollars we are spending on other countries might be better spent improving our own infrastructure from bridges that are collapsing, to an outdated electrical grid, an improved communications network, and securing our transportation system. Stop the idiocy and allow states to get back to work for the people. Stop fighting over separation of church and state. Our country was founded on the premise of freedom of religion so if a state chooses to display the Ten Commandments and allow prayer in schools good for them. If a particular town doesn’t want Christmas displays let them put up Hanukkah candles. In other words, respect the rights guaranteed in our constitution and in the next election look for someone who fight to minimize the federal government and restore the economy.
4 Comments
the oracle
January 21st, 2008
at 11:54am
Great thoughts.
I was over at HuffPo and am amazed at the current backlash against the neocons. I have always been of the mind that Ronald was more style than substance, and he did our country no favors, and over the years I’ve taken my licks over those thoughts. However, today there are no less than 80 people responding to a post by an analysis of the economy of the Reagan years showing that Bush II is roughly following the same example that Reagan set - talk about conservatism, and spend like crazy. Reagan was more charismatic, having been an actor, and so was more successful, but the parallels are amazing.
Fear is a great motivator, but we are frequently guided to fear the wrong things (and people).
Melissa
September 28th, 2008
at 8:03pm
I agree with you on eveerything except on separation of church and state..because I believe that these new modern Christians play a big part in this mess more than we know but that is not the point here.
I believe that the so-called Two Party system is as corrupt as it can be, I believe that each candidate has a part to play and they play their parts well.
I will not fill this box up with a ton of links and copy and pastes but I will say that we can at least take one stand againt this Duopoly of control and the plans that they have to make this country a dictatership by standing together as the people and demand that the people in power be taken out, wash the slate clean and start all over. Realistically our right to even demand reform is gone. All of our rights are basically taken from us, they give us things to choose from but that is an illusion because they have already fixed the game by choosing our choices for us! They have kept Third Party candidates from being included in the debates, they exclude them from the media. The 2 Parties(Democrats and Republicans) Are instantly on the ballots of all the States in America but the third parties have to depend on the support of the people to raise signatures and a ton of money in each state just to get on the ballot of of each individual state, they have to do all this without recieving funding from corporations because that is one of the things they are trying to stop the Parties from being able to do.
The 2 Party Candidates get to have media coverage on all mainstream television news programs and newspapers 24/ 7 without paying a dime..this equals to millions and millions of dollars worth of free publicity all the while steps have been taken to try and completely black out the Third party candiates. from any good exposure in the media. They lie on the 3rd Party candiates and try to make them look foolish and non-essential then they will pick ne of these candidates and make up some ridiculous lie to feed the pissed of people in order to give them a scapegoat to turn their anger on because in fact the winner has already been chosen and they knew it was not going to be the people’s choice.
Where is our Democracy and when did The Constitution get thrown away?
I am saddened , didheartened and ashamed of our so-called leaders.
Seems like they read the 10 step book,”How To Fleece and Control The Masses” Worst part of this is tha it is working. Most Americans just go along with the program without peotest these days.
Please do me a favor. Got to the YouTube video titled,”No Democracy For America.”
This video and the sidebar information will be very telling about who really pays for and makes the rules for the Presidential Debates.
We are already living under a Fascost Regime but they have done this to us soo gradually and manipulatively that most people have not even noticed.
Thank you for allowing me to rant.
-Melissa
Below is just one copy and paste that tells who is really in control of the debates , it is very telling and very scary to see this one small instance on how the Government is controlling all that we see and hear (Twilight Zone Music Here)…
Presidential Debates
Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties.
The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987.
The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf — the former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk — the former head of Democratic National Committee.
Fahrenkopf is a lobbyist for gambling interests, Kirk for pharmaceutical companies.
Debate sponsors have included Anheuser-Busch, Phillip Morris, Ford Motor Co., Yahoo Inc., 3Com, among other companies who gave soft money to the two parties’ national committees.
In 2000, some in the press dubbed the debates as the “Anheuser-Bush-Gore” debates.
In a memo by the CPD, the avowed goal for forming the commission was to “strengthen the two parties.”
In 1988, the Commission seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters.
The League had a history of allowing third party candidates to participate in the debates. In 1980 the League invited Congressman John Anderson to join Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in the debates.
Anderson was given a boost from the public debates. At one point the polls had him at 21%. He won 7% of the vote.
When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor in Minnesota he was polling at 10 percent in the polls before the debates. After ten statewide debates he rose to 38 percent and won a 3-way race.
The Commission on Presidential Debates took a different tack from the League of Women Voters.
This Commission/corporation has excluded Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan from the debates.
In 1996 Ross Perot was excluded from the debates. Even with all his money and after having won nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992 it was determined that he did not have “a chance to win,” despite the fact that he even led in the polls at one point in 1992.
Walter Cronkite called the presidential debates under the CPD an “unconscionable fraud” because the CPD format “defies meaningful discourse.”
In early years the CPD determined who could be in a debate by vague criteria including interviews with columnists, pollsters and consultants who determined whether a candidate could win.
In the year 2000, the CPD changed their criteria for third party and independent candidates — a candidate now needed 15 percent or more support as measured by the average of five private polling organizations — which just happen to be owned by several major newspaper and television conglomerates.
In 2000, Ralph Nader was excluded from the debates because the parent corporations that conduct these polls were giving him scant attention.
Without the mainstream media attention there is no moving up, and without moving up, candidates like Nader do not get into the debates and reach tens of millions of people.
In 2000, a Fox poll revealed that 64% of likely voters wanted to see ‘other candidates’ including Ralph Nader in the debates.
Other polls in 2004 showed similar results.
But it didn’t happen, thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Independents voices and third party candidates, including the Abolitionist, Women’s Suffrage Movement, Worker Protection, and Farmer Populace Party, have brought about many of the major changes in this country.
When Abraham Lincoln ran for office, the two major parties were the Whigs and the Democrats.
As a Republican, Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate — even after being left off the ballot in the 11 states that seceded from the Union.
In 2004, 17 national civic leaders from the left, center and right of political spectrum - including Paul Weyrich, Chellie Pingree of Common Cause, Alan Keyes, Tom Gerety of the Brennan Center for Justice, Bay Buchanan, Randall Robinson, former FEC General Counsel Larry Noble, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Jehmu Green of Rock the Vote - created the Citizens’ Debate Commission.
Bolstered by an advisory board comprised of 60 diverse civic groups, the Citizens’ Debate Commission goal is to sponsor presidential debates that serves the American people, not political parties, first.
References:
Open Debates
No Debate by George Farah
Please help demand that the Debates be opened up to Third Parties…
Call John McCain at (703) 418-2008. Hit 2 or 3 to speak with a campaign volunteer, 6 to leave a message in the general campaign voice mailbox.
Politely ask if John McCain is a supporter of equal opportunities and equal rights for him to insist that Ralph Nader and the other qualified candidates be included in the debates.
Call Barack Obama at 866-675-2008.
Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer and insist that Ralph Nader and other ballot qualified third party candidates be included in the upcoming Presidential debates.
Then, e-mail the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates Janet Brown at jb@debates.org
Tell her to end the exclusionary restrictions and allow Ralph into the debates.
Melissa
September 28th, 2008
at 8:05pm
Please excuse all my typos I am tired and I was to lazy to do a spellcheck.
Pat
June 3rd, 2009
at 8:25am
Bush, Jr. broke a long tradition in America by forcing onto the American people what they did not want - by using fear and anxiety for control purposes. This was a great disappointment for most Americans, and has caused great harm to our Constitutional liberties by causing Americans to question the value of their Constitution and whether they are able to control the government at all.
History has shown that there are Presidential types that appeal to the masses, and, as such, there is a formula for success.
It is not who the political parties want to field as President; it is who the public is willing to accept as President. Bad choices produce ultimatum Presidents: the best of the worst.
Alternatively, what Americans really want is the “best of the best,” which is rarely what they get from hierarchy-driven political parties.
The bottom line of this outcome is that if Americans get what they consider to be a good President, it is accidental, or inadvertent, not planned.
Campaign finance corruption has exacerbated that process to leave the masses in a quandry over whether or not they even have a country left that through its government they can depend upon.