Cult of (Presidential) Personality

What is the President of the United States supposed to be?

Is he (or she for when it happens) to be someone relatable?  Is he to be someone you can have a laugh, or beer with?  Is the President someone whom after you've met, leaves with the feeling of, as Joseph Campbell said "good fellow well met"? 

We are bombarded with images of a smiling face responding to numerous questions, nominees stating what their 'guilty pleasures' are, appearing on network shows to joke and be 'eye candy', and of course shaking hands and kissing babies.  With all of this, it seems the President should be the good fellow well met.

Is that what the President should be?

The President of the United States is first and foremost the head of the executive branch of the government; the rest of the triumvirate includes the judiciary with the court, and the legislative with the congress.  The President is not to be the one passing laws, or ruling on laws, but to be the chief enforcer of the laws.

This brings us to: what are the laws?  As we have 'progressed' through the decades, there are numerous laws - thousands of pages - and in those pages, laws contradict, overlap and make exceptions.  With that, we must look at the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.  For example, where laws have been passed that may otherwise restrict free speech, we have Cohen V. California: Cohen was arrested for 'disturbing the peace' by wearing a shirt stating 'Fuck the Draft'.  Just over a word, Supreme Court Justice Harlan wisely observed in the court's opinion "This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitutional significance."

The Constitution was held as the supreme law of the land - that it should be held as - and Cohen's conviction was reversed.  There have been times of other violations and those violations come to the highest court to be ruled upon to check the constitutionality of those laws, policies and rulings.  Therefore, the President as the chief enforcer of the country has his first fealty toward the Constitution - it's in the oath of office when he is sworn in.

There is a difference between the power delegated to the President in the Constitution, and that which has become allowable in expanding precedent in actions taken by previous Presidents - and the Congress.  Congress passed the Patriot Act and NDAA, both of which violate Constitutional rights, but have not been heard by the Supreme Court (outside of one statute deemed 'anti-terrorism').  President Obama acted as jury and executioner with the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (Anwar's teenage son), both of whom were American citizens and had their rights violated. 

Constitutional rights of due process are not to protect the guilty, for if guilty and judged as such they will be punished as judged; constitutional rights are to protect everyone from being falsely convicted.  In a trial, we do not just let the prosecutor provide his evidence and not let the defense have their voice: why would we allow the power of judging to one who is pulling a trigger at the same time?

The President is in essence a magnified and glorified National Sheriff, charged with upholding the laws of the land, and acting as the legal representative of the country.  He is to be judicious and fair in following the laws passed, but most importantly upholding the base the laws come from, being the Constitution, and from that Natural Law. 

Does how much he can smile, or how many babies he can kiss have anything to do with how he will act in the role of President instead of appeaser to the masses to get elected?  Such superficialities may help get him elected, but they won't help him in the role of being President.  Do you want someone you can have a laugh or a beer with in the role, or should the President be more than that and be the chief enforcer of laws?-what is more valuable?

The carefully groomed and manicured front-runner nominees of Obama and Romney… how different are they?  Both want(ed) NDAA, the Patriot Act, auto bailouts, TARP, CISPA, healthcare mandates, the drug war, expanded military interventionism overseas, among various other shared interests.  What is the substantive difference between these two?  In the media, the difference is their personality: though both are rich, Romney is lambasted as out-of-touch and rich, while Obama is the likeable professor-type, but aloof.  However, they both make their rounds on television, their jokes, public contact eating where they can be seen to be 'one of us' and again, shaking hands and kissing babies.

According to the left/right media, Obama claims he'll help the poor more, while Romney will help 'the job creators' more; in either case, it's more of the government getting into the market - remember, both embraced the bailouts and other programs so they're not that different.  The media skips the similarities, focusing on how they each 'look' presidential.  Joseph Campbell advised it's a lessening of the role of the President to be the good fellow well met.

Their presidential look is a Potemkin village; in the role to uphold the highest law of the land, they both embrace policies and laws that violate the Constitution. 

It is up to us as citizens to elect someone that isn't just 'likeable', but is someone ready for the role; the role not to be a cheerleader, not to be someone's friend, but to be the chief enforcer of the supreme law of the United States.  This is true not just for the President, but also for those trying to get into Congress.  We must rise above the tricks and manipulations the politicians and their handlers try to use, and ensure the elected officials follow the Constitution.  If we do not follow the Constitution  and allow them to overlook it as well, then we'll have nothing to base our defense upon when we may be looked upon as the 'bad guy' and be scapegoated, having our property or even our lives taken - we will be Constitutionally insignificant, for the Constitution will be.

In Memoriam

RIP Steve Sabol.

Steve Sabol's lasting tribute to the Oakland raiders

More newly available

I have finished updating a collection of short-stories I had written a decade ago.  The stories include a single story Warning and The Justified Trilogy (Necessary Means, Opposing Force and Preemptive Strike).  All of these are available with free samples at https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/GregoryCoffin

Newly available

I have completed the formatting and now have two books available.  Both can be seen at my author's page
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/GregoryCoffin

A Social Carol:  

As in A Christmas Carol with Scrooge's transformation, Evan Sanders is to be visited by three spirits to alter his original and narrow worldview. In a society where businesses and the State have combined, Evan is protesting the collusion. However, when he begins to get what he wanted, he finds out that it wasn't what he wanted after all.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/226259

The Gospel of Reason:

As Jesus walked amongst men to advance the Gospel Truth, so does Arenos to advance an objective & secular standard of the Good. Through numerous interactions, Arenos meets individuals & experiences situations testing existing systems of thought & beliefs. From examining sacred political & religious Goods, The Gospel of Reason looks at how some of those Goods are proper,& how some are not, & why.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/226407

Allowing our Amendments to be Picked Apart Piecemeal

As part of the expanding State there have been encroachments upon our rights - even ones formally listed in the Constitution and even among those in the Bill of Rights.  A couple of examples include on public schools the creation of 'free speech' zones even though with the first Amendment the country is a free speech zone; the Patriot Act violating numerous Amendments, most notably removing due process; one more in particular is how gun control laws violate the second Amendment.  I do not mean that there is a blanket policy being created (though there is that as well), what I'm referring to is how various municipalities are violating the second Amendment; this is not something that they are trying to do - it is something that has been done and is already law.

If we look at any Amendment in the Bill of Rights we'll see that there are not local separations from other Amendments.  In Utah it is not required by law to be a Mormon violating the first Amendment; in Miami, FL it is not required by law to make jaywalkers have their feet bound and have to pay a $10,000 fine violating the eighth Amendment; the same is true for any place that by law they can ignore due process, put a defendant in double-jeopardy, restrict the press or force citizens to house soldiers as each of these violate various Amendments.

With our not allowing other Amendments to be broken down and accepted as some elected officials say we may enjoy our rights, why do we allow it with the second Amendment?  The second Amendment has been broken down into various components on what is allowable in one part of the country against another part: is this a gun free zone?  Where am I allowed to carry a concealed weapon? (there isn't a concealed restriction in the second Amendment, but they had pistols and jackets back then as well).  Where (why) do I have to register my firearm?-what if I move to another state that has expensive registration fees?-a long and convoluted registration process and what happens if an issue arises during that time?  Where is it a misdemeanor to carry a weapon if it is loaded, but allowable if it is unloaded? (what is the point of carrying a firearm if it is unloaded?)  What types of guns are allowable at all?

Each of the aforementioned, and numerous other restrictions, is a way that the second Amendment has been made piecemeal and depending on what state or even what city you are in, a potential violation of the law.  Just by carrying a loaded firearm for your defense (as protected by the second Amendment), depending on where you are or go to, that act could be punishable by prison or jail time and fines. 

What is the consequence of all of this?-that those citizens who try and be law-abiding have more ways that they have to be concerned about violating, thereby making it nearly impossible to actually follow as the laws vary so much depending on where one is, and at a given time for the local laws may change (from time to time and place to place).  Those who are intent on using their firearms to violate another's rights already are set to violate the law, so making it illegal that they are carrying a loaded weapon means little to them as they are going to commit a greater violation anyway.  But,  the ones who try and be law-abiding are hamstringing themselves in how they carry their firearm (if they're allowed at all) and are just making it so they have less of a chance to defend themselves.  If someone standing in front of you wants to kill you and has their firearm ready, but yours is in an approved, locked security case as well as unloaded, you'll be dead well before you'd have a chance at defending yourself.

Let's stop allowing this division of our second Amendment right.  It is every bit as important to not allow these restrictions as it is to not allow any area to deny the political opinions of liberals/conservatives/libertarians.  Our second Amendment right protects us from anything ranging from a dangerous animal, a criminal or a tyrant who wants to impose restrictions on other Amendments.

Capitalism versus...

As far as a recognized political system, there are really just two choices: Capitalism or Statism.  Capitalism may have the necessary redundancy of laissez faire to mean no State control; Statism means State control in some form and to some degree whether it be private ownership with State dictates (Fascism), private ownership of property but State ownership of production (Socialism), State owning/controlling everything (Communism/Totalitarianism), and all nuances therein such as the newly bandied about private ownership and private production but public risk (Cronyism).  In principle, it is this simple: Capitalism versus Statism.

Capitalism is not just a political system.  What makes Capitalism what it is, is that it’s a philosophical system first, and politics follow.  The laissez faire aspect of Capitalism means that people may choose to act (have the liberty) how they wish as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’ rights.  This leaves people free to accept the risk and reward for their choices.  For good or bad, but with no rights violations individuals may act.  Others may join in the risk and reward, but they do so by the acts of their own liberty.  Capitalism is the liberty to act, and the responsibility for those actions.

To remove the liberty aspect, to mandate any action changes the whole and it is no longer Capitalism that is being discussed, but some form of Statism.  It is mutually exclusive as the principle is either we have liberty to direct our lives or we do not, regardless of degree.

It is not Capitalism to have State welfare, individual or corporate.  It is not Capitalism to have mandated anything, regardless of how good it may be for us as individuals or society.  The banks need to be protected as ‘they’re too big to fail’ is not Capitalism as when the State comes in and buys into the bank to save it, the system has blended Socialism with Cronyism.  The same is true for when it is mandated that by existing we have to purchase health insurance, have to put certain warning labels on certain products, have ‘sin’ taxes applied to certain items, have to get permits and licenses to begin or work in a business among various other ways the State deems it can control our interactions.

The principle is clear: we are sovereign in our lives or we are not.  This does not give us license to harm another as is a quickly bandied about retort to Capitalism; harming another violates their rights, their sovereign nature.  Working at a State-level, we individuals get classified into convenient classes to be pitted against one another and with that classism, and with the State’s approval of ‘helping’ us, it removes our sovereignty and makes us tools to sate someone else’s wants.  Where it is wrong to harm another on an individual level, Statism says the harm is part of the ‘greater good’ and it can take an individual’s resources and liberty.  If the principle is first not for the individual but that the individual may be dictated against for another, then society is a mass of those who may be commanded to serve another by threat of law: how is that for a greater good?

It is not for the greater good.  If the base is not solidly built on individual rights, then the structure of any State is built on sand and it will just be a matter of time before it crumbles.

In Memoriam

RIP Ray Bradbury.