The US was out and didn’t like the way Castro was going about things.  The government nationalized about $25-billion in private property (of which $1-billion was American property). The CIA actually tried to assassinate Castro both in 1960 and 1961 (according to declassified documents in 2007).  In 1961, President John F. Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion that was to be done by Cuban exiles living in the US to overthrow Castro… which ended in a complete disaster.  Castro was also getting help from the Soviet Union to help bolster his power.  Things went to the extreme in 1962 when the US learned that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear weapons in Cuba.  The world braced for a nuclear war as the two super-powers (the US and Soviet Union) stared each other down.  Eventually, after some tough talks, the Soviets backed down and took the missiles out of Cuba.  In 1963, the US imposed a complete commercial and diplomatic embargo on the country.  To this very day, the embargo still continues with Cuba.  Since 1963, the overall laws have been strengthened (Helms-Burton Act); however, there has been some lifting with Cuban-Americans being able to travel to Cuba and students being able to do so, as well, so long as they meet certain requirements.  And despite the embargo, Cuba still receives imports (6.6%) from the US.  The US is the 5th largest importer into Cuba, but they have to pay in cash… no credit is allowed.

We are now living in the 21st-century.  The Soviet Union has collapsed long ago.  Communism exists in only a handful of nations… some of which we have trade relations with.  And yet, a nation so close to our own still has an embargo upon it that was put in place in the 1960s.  It sounds a little out-dated to me.  We are in a time where we are looking for new trading partners to help bolster American jobs and our exports.  Wouldn’t it make sense to ship things to Cuba?  We technically already do, so why not make it official?  Yes, it is run by an authoritarian regime that doesn’t necessarily help its people (though some things have been loosened a bit since Raul Castro took over for his older brother Fidel Castro a few years ago), but yet we supported the authoritarian-Mubarak regime in Egypt that was basically the same thing.  The difference… Mubarak was our ally and Castro was an ally of the Soviet Union.  But the Cold War is long over and communism isn’t the threat that it once was.  We even have open trade relations with China… the biggest (and most populace) communist country in the world.  But yet, this little tiny island we just can’t seem to let the past go.

We were never involved in an active (or hot) conflict with Cuba.  Everything was mostly covert operations instead of open hostility.  It probably helped save the US and Soviet Union from going to nuclear war that way.  At the time we were handling this, we were diving head first into a bigger situation in Vietnam… where we supported an authoritarian regime in South Vietnam to protect it from the communist North Vietnam.  In the end, the US would lose and South Vietnam would fall to communist forces in the 1970s.  The country of Vietnam is still a communist nation to this very day.  Despite being involved in an active conflict in that country for a couple of decades, where US lives were lost and money was spent, we now have open trade relations and diplomatic relations with that nation.  But again… Cuba is left to itself despite being so close.

2008 Immigration Statistics

There is also an immigration point to this, too.  Did you know that any Cuban citizen that touches US soil is granted amnesty and allowed to stay legally within the US no matter how they got here? (previous blog entry on immigration)  Quite frankly, they should have to go through the same process as any other immigrant to this country.  Just because they live in a communist nation run by a dictator is no longer grounds for immediate amnesty within our borders.  If we are going to raise an outcry over illegal immigration in this country, shouldn’t Cubans be included in that?  In 1994, the US and Cuban governments agreed that the US would grant 20,000 visas annually in exchange that the Cuban government would crack down on unlawful departures of boats.  And though the Cuban government may or may not be complying with this, people still arrive from Cuba every year by any means necessary and are allowed to stay.  According to the Congressional Research Service, 3,351 Cubans were apprehended by the US Border Patrol in 2008… down slightly from 4,295 in 2007.  Cubans reaching ports of entry without documents showed similar trends… 11,278 in 2008 which was down from 13,019 in 2007.

The overall point that I’m trying to make is this… our relationship with Cuba is substandard to our needs here in the 21st century.  We need to find new markets for US goods… especially as we are coming out of this economic recession.  Why shouldn’t a nation so close be one of those markets?  Why can’t we finally ease the diplomatic and economic sanctions?  Again, the Cold War is long gone.  The government says that the embargo will stay in place until the Castro’s are no longer in power.  Must we really wait until then?  What sense does it make?  We trade and have diplomatic relations with other authoritarian regimes, so why not one that’s right off our coastline.  It could prove to be greatly beneficial to the US economy and for US jobs.  I’m sure the Cuban people have plenty to catch up with.  And if we are wanting to bring about a social revolution within the country, wouldn’t that be the best way to bring it about?  In the end, it could also help with the Cuban immigration problem… especially if we start making them come here legally like we want everyone else to do instead of just allowing them to stay once they are here.  Our history with Cuba is in the past.  So why must we continue to hold onto it so dearly when we have progressed with other nations that too were once our enemy?  It just doesn’t make sense anymore, and it’s time our federal government woke up to it.  It’s no longer the 1960s, it’s time to let it go.

The main problem is the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.  They say that they are working nuclear energy… which if they are, I have no quarrels with.  However, I don’t think many of us are buying what they are trying to tell us.  They have stated, repeatedly, that they would hit Israel, Europe, and the US if they did develop a nuclear weapon.  Seems like pretty big talk from a country that knows it would be blown into non-existence by the western industrialized world if it did (with condemnation from the Arab world, as well).  Iran has already had sanctions placed on it by the United Nations… though, at best, it’s only slowing down the progress of their uranium enrichment and is not (and will not) stop it.  With all the latest problems, the US is calling upon the United Nations to place even more sanctions on the country, to which Iran has replied by threatening to close the Straight of Hormuz… which connects to the Persian Gulf.  Why is the Straight of Hormuz important?  It’s where a lot of our oil comes through… and oil for the world, as well.  But there is a catch to Iran’s “evil” threat.  Most of the oil from Iran goes through there, too.  If they close it off, how does there oil get out?  I’m pretty sure we’d have our own blockade outside of theirs so that their ships don’t get out either.  It would basically be a showdown reminiscent of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The only difference, only one of us is currently a nuclear power… though we have the knowledge that using a nuclear weapon brings about more harm than good.

So how did this nuclear problem develop with Iran?  Why does it only seem like it’s developed in the last few years?  It actually stems from something that the United States has done.  That’s right, we caused our current situation with Iran.  And how did we do this?  By invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power.  Seem like a big leap?  It’s really not.  Iran and Iraq have been bitter enemies of each other.  In the 1980s, they even fought a war against each other.  It was always touchy between the two countries and any spark could set them off.  After the 1979 revolution in Iran, the US and it’s allies propped up and supported Saddam’s regime in Iraq to use him as a regional buffer.  He just got a little too big for his pants by 1991 when he invaded Kuwait… leading to the first Gulf War.  So one must offer the question, if we hadn’t gone to war in Iraq in 2003 and Saddam was still in power, would we be facing the current situation with Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapons.  Though I can’t predict alternate timelines and futures, I would tend to say no.  Saddam would never have allowed Iran to even get this far because it would have been a threat against his own regime and hold on power.  If necessary, he would have gone to war with them to stop them.  With him gone, there is no longer a buffer in the region between Iran’s goals and the rest of the world as there once had been.

So since Saddam would have gone to war with Iran to stop it, why shouldn’t the US and it’s allies do the same… as some Republican Presidential candidates have suggested?  Because it would probably do more harm than good.  If Saddam had invaded, it would have been one Islamic nation invading another.  No big deal overall.  If the US and it’s allies invaded, it would be seen as invading another Islamic country and being, as yet, more proof that we are against Islam (which we are not).  It actually could drive up recruitment for al Qaida and other terrorist organizations… which could come back to get us in the long run.  Our own national security could end up being threatened.

So what started Iran down the road of nuclear technology?  Only lately has been it become top headlines with the threat of the nation developing nuclear weapons.  In terms of the technology for power, that can be traced back to the United States.  That’s right, it was the US that started giving the Iranian government nuclear technology starting all the way back in 1957 by the Eisenhower administration under the name “Atoms for Peace”.  This would be continued until the 1979 revolution.  In the 1970s, France and Germany would also join the US in sending assistance to Iran’s nuclear program.

“After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete “nuclear fuel cycle” — reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.”  Washington Post (March 26, 2005)

I bring up the administration of President Ford for a specific reason.  There are some names from that administration that are tied to the administration of President George W. Bush when the issue with Iran began to unfold.  Richard [Dick] Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense for President Ford.  In the Bush administration, they were Vice-President and Secretary of Defense respectively.  And while Iran, which was then an ally in the 1970s, had close ties to the US government, it also had ties to US businesses such as Westinghouse and GE.  So now we know why the Bush administration didn’t want to talk about this issue very much.  And we basically created our own problem that we have today.  True, we can’t predict the future.  And in the 1950s, there would have been no way to predict what would have happened in 1979 and here in the 21st century.  But I’m pretty sure we should have seen the writing on the wall by the late 1970s… and we should have known what would happen if we removed Saddam from power in Iraq (though he was an evil man and didn’t deserve to be in power).

So how should the US and the United Nations deal with the situation in Iran now?  I think we should call their bluff about closing the Straight of Hormuz if we place more sanctions on them.  Place the sanctions and see what they do.  For them, closing the waterway might anger their own neighboring countries into taking action.  And I also think there would be a huge outcry from the rest of the world (not just the US)… and would end up hurting the Iranian economy more than it would hurt anyone else’s.  It could actually end up causing a bigger crisis among the people in their own country as we witnessed throughout the Arab world in 2011.  The people might revolt and depose of the current regime that has left them isolated in the world.

Though I have doubts sanctions can actually stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, I do feel like it’s the only alternative and suggest that we pursue it.  Going to war… in a nation that is already tired of being at war and has a massive debt problem is just not an option.  In my opinion, the inevitable is going to happen whether we want it to or not.  The best we can do is slow that progress down to a crawl and hope for a regime change that wants to be part of the global community.  The problem with Iran is it’s now the “big-dog” in the neighborhood.  It’s buffer to power is gone and the sky is the limit.  It just wants to fit in with the other big players of the world… the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Europe, North Korea… that already have nuclear weapons.  The problem is that their country is ruled by something along the lines of a “immature, hormonal teenager” who  have immediate “knee-jerk” reactions when they don’t get their way.  Anything is possible, but we must make sure that we are acting in concert with the international community.  This is not a path that we must go down on our own.  As I said… we are stuck somewhere between a rock and a hard place with this one.

LINKS:
Washington Post — March 25, 2005
Council on Foreign Relations
General Information  (especially the section on the 1970s)

Remember then-Senator Barack Obama (Dem) and former-Governor Mike Huckabee (Rep) in the 2008 primary?  Both of them were largely unknown and won their party’s caucus.  The difference, Obama, though losing in New Hampshire, was still able to ride his Iowa win to victory in other states and eventually to the nomination and to a general election victory.  Huckabee failed in New Hampshire, too, but wasn’t able to mount a successful campaign to stop John McCain from getting the nomination despite winning a few more states.

The Republican Presidential Candidates

What hurt Mike Huckabee then might play out again here in 2012.  Former-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney beat Former-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by 8-votes in Iowa.  Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in third.  Santorum nearly pulled off a Huckabee-style win getting the majority of his votes from the Christian conservatives/Evangelical Christian voters.  The Republican voting bloc in Iowa is overflowing with them.  The problem for Santorum is going to be the next battle… New Hampshire where Christian conservatives just aren’t very abundant.  If he can somehow survive a beating in New Hampshire, he has a chance in South Carolina and maybe parts of Florida (northern Florida).  But when the contest moves to Nevada, it’s again unlikely that he will win with those that aren’t his main voting bloc.  If he hasn’t derailed by then, that should be the mark.  His virtual-tie in Iowa only means he gets more media attention for now, but it doesn’t mean that he can get the nomination.  The Republican voting bloc sees him as to religious and too-far right wing.  He can get the Tea-Party and Christian conservative votes, but he won’t get the independent and moderate votes that he would need to win in November.

What about some other candidates.  Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has withdrawn after coming in 5th place.  Texas Governor Rick Perry went home to think about it but has now decided to fight to South Carolina.  Without a strong showing there, it will be over for him.  He might make it to Florida, but no chance after that unless he can make a huge comeback.  Former-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is on life support.  Unless he can show that there is some life in his campaign in New Hampshire and/or South Carolina, it will be over for him, too.  Again, he can’t get passed Florida without something bigger… and South Carolina is going to be his best bet to beating Mitt Romney and where he should concentrate (since New Hampshire is not possible for him).  After coming in third place, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is in a good place to make a difference.  He gets a very different demographic of the Republican party and even the independents.  It remains to be seen how far he can go.  His supporters are usually fairly faithful to him.  But his main downfall is that he doesn’t appeal to the core Republican voters.

Former-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney might have been left holding the victory torch by those 8-votes after Tuesday, and though Iowa doesn’t necessarily pick the eventual nominee, he is sitting pretty good right now.  In New Hampshire, he has a double-digit lead.  Though in 2008, Obama had a lead in Iowa but Hillary Clinton ended up winning the Democratic primary there, so nothing is set in stone in this last week.  Who could upset Romney? Congressman Ron Paul could surge up in the independent-minded state.  But there is one other candidate that has put everything at stake in New Hampshire.  He came in last in Iowa, but didn’t really campaign there at all.  Former-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. He’s a moderate and has been campaigning hard.  Though it will be hard for anyone to take down Romney’s double-digit lead in a week, Huntsman needs to have a good second-place finish to stay in the race.  If he doesn’t, I fear that his campaign will end.  If he can, and then can survive until Nevada in February, he might be able to best Romney.  The two Mormon candidates battling it out for that vote in the West where they are on Huntsman’s home turf.  All of that depends on his finishing in New Hampshire, though, and if he can pick up some momentum so he doesn’t get trounced in other states.  Again his biggest drawback is going to be that he’s a moderate and not a party extremist.

With Iowa now over, the nomination is Romney’s to lose.  He didn’t campaign there very much and wasn’t making a big play for it.  Yet, he still edged out a win.  And with New Hampshire being in his political back yard, the ball is in his court. It will be interesting to see now how long this race might go on.  It could all be “theoretically” over with Florida or Nevada… though mathematically, he’d still be far short of the number of delegates needed for the nomination.  It’s all about money to mount the campaign in each state, and he’s the one candidate sitting on it and the campaign infrastructure to keep going.

UPDATE: (1/19/2012)
Upon certifying the Iowa caucus votes from January 3, Rick Santorum won the state by 34-votes over Mitt Romney.

SIDENOTE:
President Obama was not challenged in the Democratic Iowa caucus and will receive all of his party’s delegates.

SITE NOTE:
Have you checked out the Election 2012 pages yet?  Start HERE and go through them.  And don’t forget to “like” us now on Facebook if you haven’t already.

That all happened in 1865.  Now let’s move up a year to 1866.  The Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Milligan [71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2] that the application of military tribunals to citizens is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operational.  (click here)    By this ruling, Mary Surratt should have had a civilian trial and not been subjected to a military tribunal at all.  So why is all of this relevant to anything?  Let’s flip up now to the 21st century and the War on Terror.  Since this began after the attacks on 9/11, we have arrest and imprisoned countless individuals that have been suspect in being tied to terrorist organizations (such as al Qaida).  I’m not going to place innocence or guilt on any of them as I do not know the circumstances of their arrests and whatnot; however, it is plausible that some were accused of terrorist activities by others (especially in Afghanistan where tribal allegiance is key).  Under the administration of President George W. Bush, these individuals were subject to trial in a military tribunal by reason that they were terrorists… enemy combatants.  Then-Senator Barack Obama campaigned against the use of military tribunals and suggested civilian courts; however, since becoming President, he has upheld the strategy used by President Bush.

So why military tribunals and not civilian court as per the 1866 ruling?  One could argue that because most of the terrorist are from other countries that the 1866 Supreme Court ruling doesn’t apply to them.  But what about those that have been arrested that are US citizens (yes, there have been some over the years)?  A military tribunal is a way to “railroad” the case since it plays by different rules than a civilian court would do.  One major thing comes into play when talking about civilian courts… a trial by a jury of peers and human fallibility.  I consider it one thing since they both go together.

A couple of years ago, I was selected to sit on a jury in a case involving attempted armed robbery.  The jury needed a unanimous verdict to send the defendant free or to convict him.  After hearing both sides of the case, we began to deliberate.  Remember that under US law (US Constitution… referenced in Amendments 5, 6 & 11), a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.  When we first took our vote in the jury room, some of us voted innocent and some of us voted guilty.  We began to discuss the evidence that was presented to us in the trial, and by the end, we were one vote short of convicting the man.  The one person who still thought that he was innocent held firm.  As a result, we were a hung jury and the trial had to go through again with a different jury.  Was he guilty or innocent?  To me, the evidence seemed to think that he was.  Does that mean he was?  Not at all.  Innocent people have been found guilty of crimes they haven’t done before and are let out of jail years after they were incarcerated.  In some cases, a person’s innocence is found out after they have been put to death by the state even.  The opposite has also happened where a guilty person has gone free for one reason or another.  This goes back to what I called “human infallibility” that I mentioned earlier.  Military tribunals have a different code of conduct than a civilian trial and no jury of peers.  Human infallibility still exists but only to the extent that those presiding over the tribunal have already made up their minds… and if the person is seen as “evil” enough, the entire proceeding could be weighted to find a guilty verdict… whether the person actually is or not.

So now a two-pronged question.  Should those accused of being terrorists (or links to terrorist organizations) from other countries be subject to the 1866 Supreme Court ruling?  And what about those that are US citizens?  Concerning the latter question, the answer would seem to be quite simple.  The ruling in 1866 would seem to apply that if they are US citizens (even if deemed an enemy combatant) that they are still to be guaranteed a trial in a civilian court.  The more complex answer comes to the former question.  When we, as civilians, travel to a foreign nation, we are subject to their laws and their justice system.  The same goes for any person that travels to the US from another nation.  And I do realize that there is a difference between speeding on a highway, murdering someone, and committing an act of terror.  This goes to a question that I raised in a couple of blog entries (here and here) … What constitutes an act of terror?  Going beyond a dictionary definition, there gets to be several muddled interpretations.  What can history teach us in this situation with this kind of question?  How far (if at all relevant) does the 1866 Supreme Court ruling go?  Where is it that we draw the line as a society?

SITE NOTE:
I want to wish all of you a happy and safe new year.  We are already geared up for the 2012 elections and ready for things to begin in earnest. Make sure to check out those pages as they will be updated as things unfold.

Seeing upon how little our government has been working as of late, and on how “compromise” has become a dirty word, no one seems to be listening to the voice of the people and what we say.  (see previous blog)  Is this a new thing?  Not really.  But we have grown weary of the inaction by our government to step up and take control over the big issues of the day… regulations that make sense, fair taxes, term limits for Congress, cuts in government spending and bringing down the debt, and entitlement reforms… among many other things.  To each of us, each of these things means something different and the solutions are just as diverse as the population.  However which way you look at them, the elected officials usually dig their heals into their party platforms and refuse to budge on anything (except maybe a crumb here and there).  It gets nothing accomplished because no one wants to work together and get these issues taken care of.  They are afraid of appearing weak in front of their voting base, though in the end, they look week to a larger portion of Americans.

Back in May 2010, a new poll showed that 31% of Americans favored a third political party.  This may in part explain the rise of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party during that year’s election cycle.  However, favor for the Tea Party has fallen since then.  My guess to that is because they are seen as the primary obstacle for getting anything done because they refuse to work with anyone.  They are basically the children within Congress.  You either have to play by their rules or they aren’t playing.  My overall point, though, is that Americans are growing more and more eager to support a third-party candidate… someone to shake up the system.

Third-party candidates usually don’t fare well on the national scene.  Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 as an Independent, and Theodore Roosevelt came in 2nd place (in front of current President William Howard Taft) in 1912 as Progressive.  Other candidates have just become spoilers to the main two candidates, and that is seen as one of the biggest drawbacks to supporting a third-party candidate.  If a candidate doesn’t come from the Democratic or Republican parties, they are seen us unelectable, so rather than support the candidate that they really want, a voter will go vote for the candidate of the major party that they want so the other guy doesn’t win.  And to me, that is no way to be voting at all.  With the call for a third-party the highest its been in years and maybe decades, the time is now for voters to actually vote for a different party other than a Democrat or Republican.  The other hard part is that Democrats and Republicans are usually guaranteed spots on every state ballot (and DC) automatically.  A third-party candidate has to file in each state and go through each state’s rules for filing.  This is something that gears the process toward the two main parties.

Even the primary process for determining who the nominee will be to run for President for each party disenfranchises people.  Some are closed to only those that are within the party.  And the process is aimed at front runners, narrowing the field, and choosing from those that only wish to seek the office.  Independents are left out… and it should be us that determines who we want to run our country.  Back in the founding days of our nation, men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc., didn’t actively run for President.  In fact, most said they didn’t want to be; however, if the people chose them, they would do as they were asked in service of their country.  To run for President as we do now was seen an un-gentleman-like and the first sign that someone shouldn’t be President.  (They usually had surrogates do the campaigning for them so they could keep their hands clean.)

There is something new for next year though.  It’s called Americans Elect (website), and it’s determined to give the people more of a say in an actual third-party candidate.  They are listening to the people over the importance of issues and where we stand on them.  And they are already hard at work to get their candidate on the ballot in every state and DC.  There are only certain states that will allow a candidate to file to get on a ballot this early, but Americans Elect are already on  in 11 states and almost done in California.  The rest are ready to filed next year once they are able to.  This would clear the way for a third-party candidate to get on the ballot in each state and remove a major obstacle.  The other hitch is this… whoever runs for President and Vice President on this ticket, must come from different sides of the aisle (Democrat and Republican or vice versa, Democrat and Independent or vice versa, Republican and Independent or vice versa.)  It’s an interesting concept… and one that is trying to listen to the populace and rise above political ideology.  Third party candidates are considered as well (i.e. Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.).  For the moderates, independents, and those wanting a real third political party, this might just be the option.  The nominating process is done by all the people online… and even the nominating convention is done online rather than wasting tons of money at a four-day event.  Even the two major political parties that make up our duocracy are taking notice of this new movement and are already addressing it.

Regardless of which candidate any of us choose to support, I think it’s important to remember that we should have more choices than just the two party system.  No, I don’t think we should have a ballot that has so many names that it becomes a pamphlet, but still more than two.  And it is not right not to vote for a third-party candidate just because you don’t want a different candidate to win of a major party.  It’s time we wake up and start voting for candidates that we actually want to vote for and give them a chance at victory instead of just throwing our vote away to a major political party/ideology that has shut out most of the voices in this country.  As I have watched the Republican primary unfold, I have seen and heard nothing that has given me any confidence that any of them are up to the task that would be set upon them should they win.  And as for the Democratic primary, there isn’t even a choice since no one is challenging the current President… which again leaves even parts of its own party without a voice.  This is not the way we should be electing our leaders here in the 21st century, and it is time to shake up the system.  I will be watching the Americans Elect process next year as it unfolds… as I will be doing with the other parties as well.  This could be a major opportunity to jump start a real third-party onto the national scene and bring about candidates that we want rather than ones that are just out their seeking it on their own and begging us for a vote that means nothing to them in the end.

LINK:
Americans Elect 

ARTICLE:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/group-clears-path-for-a-third-party-ticket/

SITE NOTE:
Have you checked out the new 2012 Election pages here on In Declaration…?  We have the overview page which will list the candidates and other information, and we have two sets of Primary/Caucus pages that list each primary/caucus by date.  So check them out today if you haven’t already.  All pages will be kept up to date as the 2012 election unfolds.

The term “robber baron” derives from medieval German Lords that use to impose tolls to ships travelling the Rhine River.  In the 1890s, it had come to be used to describe any wealthy businessman that used questionable practices to become wealthy.  It combined the sense of criminal “robber” with illegitimate aristocracy “baron”.  These guys controlled all the important industries… oil, steel, fur, railroads, and even real estate and finance.  If it wasn’t sounding familiar before, how about now?

These giants of industry (or robber barons) were eventually brought down by one of their own… President Theodore Roosevelt, a man who was born rich and privileged.  Growing up, Roosevelt personally knew the families of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc.  And yet, it would be this man that would see what these men were representing.  This is the time period when anti-trust laws came about, child labor laws, working conditions, health codes.  When it comes to clean water or fresh meat, it comes to the era of Teddy Roosevelt.  It took some time… and even some later Presidents (such as Taft) to continue busting up the monopolies and the power that these families had built up.  The overall point being, that the power these industrialists had on government had been hit and broken.  Sadly, it just didn’t stay that way.

Now let me ask you if you know some other names… Ken Lay, Daniel Mudd, Richard Syron, Ken Lewis, Rupert Murdoch, or Rex Tillerson?  Some of the names might sound familiar and some might not.  These men currently are or once were powerful men in their respective fields… Enron, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bank of America, NewsCorp, and ExxonMobile.  I chose these names in particular as they cover the areas of energy, finance, and the media.  Did you know that JPMorgan Chase was fined for its roll with the Enron and WorldCom scandals at the beginning of the 21st century that actually helped the “dot-com bust”?  Bank of America is the world’s largest wealth management corporation covering 80% of Americans.  And one should currently look at the Board of Directors for ExxonMobile… where tentacles are reaching out into other industries by having the heads of other companies on the very governing body of this energy conglomerate.  PepsiCo, AT&T, General Mills, Campbell Soup, and Chase Manhattan are just a few to list.

Not only has the United States reentered a world that President Roosevelt began to bust up while he was president, but the entire industrialized world is now falling victim to this.  The mighty industrialists (robber barons) of our day have deep pockets and have government wrapped around their pinky fingers.  It’s these robber barons that we blame for this worldwide economic recession that we are currently in… and the housing crisis here in the US.  They were cooking the books and knowingly making bad business decisions in order to turn a bigger profit.

President Obama, on December 6, attempted to resurrect the spirit of President Roosevelt, but in my opinion, he will fall short.  Roosevelt is a larger-than-life figure.  After having several sub-par Presidents in the US, it was Teddy that brought back the power to the executive mansion and away from big business.  These days, big business is just too ingrained within the halls of our government.  And from what I’ve seen out of all the candidates running on the two major party tickets, none of them have the skills necessary to do what needs to be done once again to these industrialists and to their companies.

The ordinary people that make up the majority of society have been marginalized and pushed aside.  Somehow, over the past decades, we have allowed this to happen.  We have turned a blind eye until now.  So can anything be done to break up the strangle-hold these robber barons have on our government, our economy, and even ourselves?  I don’t have the answers to that.  But I think a good start would be to bust up these “too big to fail” conglomerates and bring back free enterprise… a free market society.  Consumers need more choices not bigger industries.  We talk about how we are against big government… and even vote that way.  It wasn’t until the Occupy Wall Street movement that a voice began to be heard against big business.  There is much work to be done, and it will take time to do it.  Unfortunately, this time we don’t have a Teddy Roosevelt to guide us and to swing his big club.  For now, these robber barons of the 21st century are here to stay and continue to gain in wealth and power while placing us under a stranglehold.  We can make sure, though, that we fight them all the way and make sure our voices are even louder.

Washington is more polarized than ever.  Even if Party A agrees now with something that Party B said several years ago, Party B won’t agree to it now (and vice versa).  And we also have to contend with the Tea Party factor, too.  You know, the faction of the Republican Party that refuses to compromise on anything and is probably that biggest hindrance on anything being accomplished in the last 2-years because most of them don’t understand how a government truly works.  A government, and most importantly our government, has always been give and take since the beginning.  It’s what created the two chambers of Congress.  It’s what created our financial system and decided where our nation’s new capital would be located.  So why does it seem like no one these days can agree on cutting even the smallest amounts from our federal budget?  What makes compromise such a dirty word in today’s times though it’s basically what formed our nation?  Let us not forget that the Tea Party Republicans were elected in 2010 on their no-compromise platform.  So is this faction of the Republican Party to blame or is it the voting populace that actually voted them into office and believed the drivel they were being fed?

In this particular instance, you had two different ideologies at work against each other, and it basically seemed like failure was going to be the only option from day one as both sides dug in their heals and refused to cooperate.  The Democrats wanted to take away the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2%… something they’ve been hounding on since 2010 (and even as far back as the 2008 elections) and refused to accept any budget cuts until the Republicans agreed to do so. Republicans would only agree to close tax loop-holes but not tax hikes on the upper 2% of the population (who are paying their lowest percentage in income tax since income taxes became legal by the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1913).  It’s the same old story we’ve heard time and time again.  They couldn’t even come to an agreement on smaller things because they couldn’t get over their bigger ideological differences.  I will, however, give some credit to Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA, who is very vocal about not raising taxes, for attempting to bridge the gap though his plan would still fail.  (You can read about the Toomey plan on the Bloomberg Businessweek website by clicking HERE.)

So does this mean that Washington is broken?  The general population tends to think it is.  Afterall, Congress has its lowest approval rating ever at 9%.  To give some bearing to this, President Richard Nixon had a higher approval rating during the height of the Watergate Scandal.  If you were to ask conservative columnist/commentator George Will this exact same question, you would get an entirely different answer.  He has repeatedly said that Washington is not broken.  This is routinely what happens when you have a two party system that have two different ideologies.  Though I respect George Will and see his point, I don’t really agree with him on this.  Yes, this does happen when you have two different political parties with two different ideologies, but throughout our history, we’ve managed to come up with solutions or compromises when our nation has needed it the most.  And yet, now, we can’t even agree to a simple $1.2 trillion in budget cuts.  And to put it into perspective, cutting $1.2 trillion from the federal budget is like taking a crumb from the crust of pie.  It’s basically all smoke and mirrors.  They look like they’re doing something when they are, in fact, doing nothing that would really curtail our rising debt by any significant measures.  And somehow, they still failed at doing nothing.

In August, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the US credit rating from AAA to AA+ marking the first time in history that has happened.  It’s main reason for doing so was the political climate in Washington and that the two political sides would not be able to come together to cut our spending and get our budget back under control.  (click HERE for report)  Our political leaders immediately screamed foul and pledged to get the deal done to prove S&P wrong and show the world that we were on top of things.  As it turns out S&P was right and maybe we earned that downgrade in our credit rating.  Washington doesn’t seem to want to solve our problems… just fight amongst themselves and stick to their political ideology rather than do what is needed for our country and for our future.

So what happens now?  S&P has already announced they won’t downgrade our credit rating over the failure to reach a deal, so I guess that is some good news.  Any budget cuts or tax increases the committee would have reached would not have gone into effect until 2013, so there is still time for Congress to dwindle the amount of cuts or eliminate the cuts completely… though President Obama is standing firm on those automatic cuts by saying that he will veto any legislation sent from Congress that takes away the automatic cuts that were part of the debt-ceiling compromise.  As for the general public in America, they need to wake up and realize that this is a bigger problem.  The voters are just as divided as the members of Congress are… which isn’t helping shed any light on the issue.  There are going to have to be major budget cuts (even more than 4-trillion) to get things back on track, and, sadly, taxes will have to be raised as well as other forms of revenue.  We can be somewhat creative in this approach though.  I have seen one Congressman suggest legalizing medical marijuana and taxing it.  Regardless, we as Americans are going to have to change how we are looking at this particular subject and what its really going to take to get us out of it.  The situation is only going to get worse.  If we don’t get a handle on this, major budget cuts are going to become massive budget cuts.  Our infrastructure that is already falling apart will be completely out of reach of being repaired.  And as for those politicians on any side of the aisle that think compromise is a dirty word, they need to be voted out of office and taught a little bit of American history.  (Sadly, most of them will probably win reelection in 2012 or beyond.)  We need to be electing officials that are will to compromise… not just give in.  Both sides should be working through their different ideologies rather than just cementing their feet into the ground and refusing to budge.  Compromise is part of the fabric of our nation.  It has made us the super-power that we are today.   And it is time that we bring the term ‘compromise’ back into the congressional dictionary and back into the light.  Only then will our elected officials and the people of this country be able to tackle this major issue.  We have the ability to do it.  We are Americans, afterall.  Now let’s get it done before the real clock does run out.  It is still ticking down.

First of all… I hate to be the one to point this out, but a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable.  Yes, you can actually look that fact up.  We tend to think of it as a vegetable, but it is indeed a fruit.  So tomato sauce comes from a fruit and not a vegetable, and therefore, it can’t be a vegetable.  One would tend to think that our leaders in Congress would tend to know this little fact.  Really??  Not one of them caught that mistake out of everyone there?  They have to be complete dumbasses.  And we expect these people to help fix our economy and get us back to work?  They can’t even tell a fruit from a vegetable.  I’m sorry, but my jaw is still on the ground from this complete lack of using one’s brain.  I honestly wish that we could walk up to them, smack them upside the head, and call them fucking dumbasses.

My second point comes along the lines of pizza being a vegetable because of the tomato sauce.  Now keep in mind the earlier bit of this rant.  Now yes, a pizza can have your dairy group, your fruit group, your meat group, and your vegetable group, and your bread group depending on what you put on your particular pizza.  However, the tomato sauce does not make the entire pizza a vegetable… and not just because a tomato is a fruit either.  We’ve been complaining for years that Americans are getting too fat… which is now leading to several health issues.  Now some of this is because we as a society are becoming lazy-asses.  But it still doesn’t help by the food that we eat (and the amount in which we eat it in).  This only exacerbates the problem.  I mean… how fucking fat do we have to be as a society before we get it into our heads?  Eating pizza every once in a while is OK, but it is not a vegetable (or a fruit) and isn’t healthy for any of us.  Chef Jamie Oliver must be having a stroke right about now if he’s read this story yet.  This just makes the school system in America shove pizza down our kids throats , teach them bad eating habits when they should be learning good eating habits, and making them get fatter and fatter (especially as recess and PE are being cut).

I would honestly like to know which Congressman or woman came up with this legislation… and which ones voted for it.  They need to be voted out for being complete fucking dumbasses who couldn’t even get the basic information right to start with.  We expect these people to help us out of our current problems and run our country?  Thank God that Congress had already solved all of our problems.  People are back to work, the economy is booming, no more people sneaking across the borders, no more dependence on oil, pollution is in check, drugs are gone, our infrastructure is the best in the world… oh wait.  None of that has actually happened.  This has been a huge waste of their time and our taxpayer dollars.  I haven’t seen Congress do something this frivolous since they renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries (and then back again) after France was against us in going into Iraq.  (funny how France was right and called us on our bullshit.)  These people need to be taught that there are better things to do that isn’t wasting our time and dollars as this has done.  Maybe they should put focus on jobs and the economy instead of tomatoes.  Last time I checked, tomatoes aren’t going to solve our problems.  And maybe, just maybe, even with the simplest of things, Congress should do a little research on whatever subject they are going to be talking about before they open their mouths.  Tomatoes… a vegetable… really?  Apparently, even I am smarter than all of you since I already knew it was a fruit.  Maybe we should send them all back to elementary school because, as the game show used to say, they are not smarter than a fifth grader… and that is truly sad.  I think it’s time we elect people that actually have a brain and know how to use it.  And for anyone who did vote for this bill, it’s time for them to go back to the real world and find a new job.  Bon Appetit.

The elections were to be held a couple of months ago, though they are supposed to get underway by the end of November and last until March.  These are just the parliamentary elections… and this body is what will draft the new constitution for the country.  However, besides for dragging their feet to the elections, the military leaders are now trying to make it to where they can overrule the Parliament and the President if they disagree with anything.  Military funding would remain secret and not released to the public.  And, in an early draft as to what they wanted, the military would make up 80 out of the 100 people that are to draft the new constitution.  It sounds like they would be setting up a puppet government.  It would “look” free and democratic to the outside world, but they would be running a military dictatorship behind the scenes.

In Tunisia… which is slightly farther west from Egypt in North Africa, free elections have already been held.  Why is this important?  It’s because it was in Tunisia at the beginning of the year that these democratic revolutions started.  Once simple act of protest turned into something much larger.  Within days, Tunisia had overthrown its government.  An interim government was put in place until elections could be held… and they have been.  (NOTE: Tunisia had a higher voter turnout than any election in the US in modern history.)

Egypt has now come to the fork in the road.  Which way do they turn can only be decided by them?  The people have taken to the streets once again to show the military leaders that they will not accept anything short of full free and democratic elections… and a government that answers to the people and not the military.  It has now mixed spiritual and secular as religious denominations are lending their voices and helping to organize the masses.  The military leaders would be wise to listen to the people.  They should be smart enough to see what is still going on across the Middle East with leaders that are trying to hang on to power despite objections from the masses.  The Egyptian people will unite once again to overthrow the military if they try to stay in power.  It is a movement that probably would not be as peaceful as the last one, but it would end with the same outcome.

I personally hope that I am wrong on this one.  I do not want to see a military dictatorship set up in a country where the people worked together peacefully to overthrow their government and institute new democratic policies… something that every American should even cherish.  The Egyptian people need to stand strong and not back down.  The country does belong to the people.  They must be willing to fight against the corruption that still exists within the military hierarchy for the freedoms and reforms that they are seeking.  It was Thucydides that said, “The secret of happiness is freedom.  The secret of freedom is courage.”  The Egyptian people had the courage before in the early part of the year, and now I see that courage once again in the streets.  Their first parliamentary elections are about to start in earnest within the coming weeks, and they must make sure that their voices are the ones that are heard over all else.  They are not just the Egyptian people. They are Egypt.

LINKS:

For previous entries on the Arab Spring… uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, click the following links:  Ivory Tusks, African Political Upheaval, The Pharaoh’s Tomb, Riding the Waves of Democracy, Eye of the Beholder.

The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act.  However, the Fed was not the first national bank within the United States.  The Bank of the United States (later known as the First Bank of the United States) was created under Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton during the administration of President George Washington.  It was part of the negotiated deal between Hamilton and House-Speaker James Madison that placed the nation’s capital city along the banks of the Potomac River (though Washington, himself, would pick the exact spot).  The First Bank of the United States was in operation from 1791-1811 when it’s charter expired under the administration of President James Madison (the vote to renew the charter failed by one vote in the House of Representatives).

The Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816… only 5-years later.  It had been created because of the war of 1812… and done so by many of the same people who had refused to renew the first bank’s charter.  Why was this done?  The United States was suffering from severe inflation and could barely afford to pay for military operations during the War of 1812.  Also, the credit and borrowing status of the nation was at its lowest level since the nation’s founding.  Having dissolved the First Bank of the United States had led to a small financial problem since there was no national bank to oversee the entire financial system.

Now let’s skip ahead to the 1830s.  President Andrew Jackson disliked the Second Bank of the United States as he saw it as corrupted and filled with fraud.  And in a political move, he vetoed the renewal for its charter… which came to his desk early.  (It was sent to him by House Speaker Henry Clay in a political move to keep President Jackson from being reelected.  Clay was also on the side of Bank President Nicholas Biddle.  Jackson vetoed the bill and still won reelection).  Though President Jackson had vetoed the renewal charter, the Second Bank of the United States had several years remaining under its current charter, but Jackson decided to move first.  He ordered his Treasury Secretary to remove all of the funds by the federal government from the bank and redirect all the federal government’s deposits to the state banks.  This was being done at a time when Congress was on recess.  When his Treasury Secretary refused, he fired him and appointed another… and did so until he found a guy that would do the task at hand.  This was done in 1833.  The Second Bank of the United States was no more.  It charter officially expired in 1836, and five years later, the bank went bankrupt.

So why did I just give you that huge history lesson?  Simple.  It all comes down to the year 1837 and a financial crisis.  The Panic of 1837 was caused by severe runaway inflation due to the demise of the Second Bank of the United States.  The Panic was followed by a five-year depression with bank failures and severe unemployment.  So now I ask you this… are you seeing a trend from when we have done this in the past?

The Federal Reserve was created for a reason… maintain employment, keep prices stable, and keep interest rates at a moderate level by regulating monetary policy.  Sounds simple enough.  But like the 1830s, I do think The Fed is filled with corruption and fraud.  Interest rates have been placed at zero, and money is being printed off more abundantly than at any time in our nation’s history.  Problem?  This, too, can cause massive inflation.  This would the other extreme of having The Fed completely dissolved.  So what needs to happen?  It needs to stop printing off money that has no support behind it.  You must remember that any paper currency is completely worthless without anything behind to support it (i.e. the gold standard, the silver standard).  And The Fed needs to be completely overhauled.  The waste needs to be thrown out, the organization needs to be completely restructured, and it needs to have government oversight so that it can’t just run amok and do whatever it wants to do.  There are severe consequences to allowing a government agency do as it wants without any checks.  It also needs to have the oversight of the people.  Though we may not have a complete understanding of things, it should not be treated as though it’s out of our reach.  We need to have a voice in the matter and know what The Fed is doing.

Changes need to be made… some of them need to be drastic changes.  But I think the message of completely dissolving The Federal Reserve is the wrong way to go.  I think it would lead to an even bigger crisis than the one we have been facing for the past few years as history has indicated.  Author David McCullough once said, “History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are.”  We need to learn from our past mistakes and not repeat them this time around.