The Santa Ana Sentinel

Two Sides, Same Coin

Posted in Discordia by J. González Solorio on January 8, 2012

I am not on here to defend either the Republican or Democratic Parties, because truth be known, I feel both parties deserve equal blame for the state of the union. I simply allude to the current administration’s actions and policies, both proposed and those already implemented, because it is what is of most relevance at this moment, and what we may have some sort of influence over. I am a libertarian (lower case ‘L’—not confined strictly to the Libertarian Party, but rather a true believer in the principles espoused by the libertarian philosophy), and do not consider myself a supporter of the identical agenda those two dominant parties prove to have by way of their increasingly bipartisan war on citizens.

To force people into healthcare plans which will ultimately benefit the healthcare industry most, especially in those cases concerning people who do not fully accept ‘traditional’ Western medicine and who choose not to partake in the consumption of pharmaceuticals or in the self-appointed authority the FDA and American Medical Association have held for countless years, is not congruent with the principles of a truly free market and free society, regardless of what short-term benefits this infringement may result in. It’s a band-aid intended to rally people of need—seducing them with short-term benefits—but which, in the long run, only further enslaves them, much like they’ve been enslaved by the central banking system.

The resistance to truly address the national debt, and to implement significant cuts in the budget for this runaway bureaucracy has come from both sides. Both Republicans and Democrats espouse the doctrine of endless spending, of ‘nation-building’, of both meddling in and creating conflict around the world so we may ravage a sovereign nation and have the most prominent corporations benefit from its reconstruction and from it being forced into the throes of a central banking system.

The actions of the Obama administration are no different than the actions of Bush II’s actions, and are no different than Reagan’s actions, because all have spent like there is no tomorrow, and it doesn’t matter what front has been used to justify those actions. It doesn’t matter if it’s the inflated spending on defense and military for wars which have proven once and again to be little more than well thought-out rackets. It doesn’t matter if it’s the inflated spending Obama proposes with the American Jobs Bill, so that we may ‘create jobs’ that only help expand our repression by again policing the very citizens of this once-free nation from a faceless ‘terror’ that very conveniently moves location to whatever resource-rich country we look to exploit next. It also doesn’t matter if it’s the inflated spending Obama proposes on this nationalized healthcare, which will only run our economy into the ground even more quickly. You don’t propose an extreme measure like ObamaCare, which would cost $2 trillion, at a time like this, when we are on the verge of a national economic catastrophe. We can simply not afford something like that right now, and it’s debatable whether something like that would ever truly be for the benefit of all, since it already undermines the very freedom our country was once characterized by.

It is very easy to win over a populace that is kept away from the truth when programs like the American Jobs Bill or ObamaCare are sold to us as measures which will magically save us all.  The truth is that such measures are huge EXPENDITURES that rely on more borrowing, and are part of  the blatant disregard the overwhelming majority of politicians have for basic economics.  You don’t avoid a budget deficit and you don’t reduce the national debt by lunging headfirst into an endless array of extravagant programs, regardless of what benefits their authors claim.  The only way there is by truly pulling our socks up, re-thinking our current strategies, and by making cuts on non-essential programs and policies.  There is no shortcut, and anyone who says differently is not being honest, and has an ulterior agenda to fill.  What we find ourselves doing again and again is the equivalent of an individual finding themselves tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt and repeatedly opting to take out a new credit card, with an ever-increasing interest rate, in hopes of ‘bringing on an economic boost’ or of reducing their debt, and not only failing to cut their expenditures, but increasing their expenses more and more each year.  This does not work for an individual, and to think it will work for a national economy is either genuinely ignorant of the basics of economics, mistakenly believes our creditors will grant us an unlimited period of time to make good on our debt, or has consciously given up on the concept of freedom declared in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is pinning his or her hopes on some type of world government and/or economy to solve our problems.

It is no longer an issue of whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans who are to blame for our country’s woes, because it’s both of them, and my personal choice is for a man who happens to be a Republican, but whose libertarian philosophy cherishes and protects the very freedom our country was founded upon, and who defends the free market, allowing the consumer to determine what is in demand and what is not, rather than a private network of banks, which truly gives meaning to the term ‘conflict of interests’. I will abstain from plugging his name because I know those in the know are well-aware of the genuine change he represents, which is really the country’s last chance, and if you do not believe me, watch what occurs to our country should he not come to power this next year…

J. González Solorio

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Omar Ávalos Gallegos said, on January 8, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Sorry, but I have to take this stance with you and pardon my tone but, what are you a prophet? An economist?

    To equate both parties is to over stretch and over simplify. Again, Paul held a similar stance to yours, or should I say, seat on the fence, before he opted on the Republican ticket. Why? Because of that party’s conservative appeal to him. Not all is rosy with Ron Paul and I certainly won’t support someone with his views on immigration, which are taken from the Republican / tea party playbook.

  2. J. González Solorio said, on January 8, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    I don’t pretend to possess clairvoyant or prophetic skills, but none of that is needed to make an educated guess on what will occur in this next decade if we go in the direction we’ve been going in this past decade. If you don’t believe what I say, can you delineate specific points on which Obama and Romney (the media’s GOP darling and most likely candidate to get GOP nomination), disagree?

  3. J. González Solorio said, on January 8, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    My argument was not likening the philosophies or ideologies championed by the two parties, I’m talking about the ones being pushed by those politicians representing those parties today and the policies that those politicians actually back or bring about once they’re in office. The truth is very few politicians actually represent the originals ideals that defined either of those two parties, it’s become a virtual melding of parties. What differences exist between Obama and the major GOP candidates (of course, excluding Ron Paul)? On foreign policy? On ‘nation-building’? On the economy (Fed-run or free market)? On running deficit budgets year after year?

  4. J. González Solorio said, on January 8, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    The idea of having to be ‘on the fence’ about things if one doesn’t accept either the Democratic or Republican agendas as ‘the answer’ is absurd. They’ve both had ample opportunity to select competent representatives and have, in general, failed the citizens of this country, with some rare exceptions. The Constitution was written to be the groundwork for the nation, and anyone suggesting we abandon its principles should raise a red flag in the mind of anyone who cherishes freedom. The corruptibility of man exists today as it did at the time the Constitution was written, and a large portion of the document was written to protect us from those leaders who are tempted and seduced into adopting policy that goes against the welfare and prosperity of the country. True patriotism and concern for welfare of our economy and for our liberties means never straying from those ideals set forth in the Constitution. The extent to which both Congress and the executive branch have abandoned the idea that they work FOR us, and that they REPRESENT us, and our will, really upsets me, and to speak against the ideals the Tea Party movement is addressing is to speak against what this country was founded on. Perhaps some in the Tea Party movement have some racist leanings or have a tendency to find scapegoats, but if you look at the ideas they bring up and want to defend, it’s what the country has been founded on. Those choosing to criticize that movement are really criticizing the Constitution, and should take the gloves off and admit they seek some type of world currency or global authority that will come ‘rescue us’ from ourselves. You don’t get out of debt with more debt, and that’s what war brings, that’s what ‘nation-building’ brings, and that’s what central banking bring.

  5. J. González Solorio said, on January 8, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    …and in response to Ron Paul, he’s running as a Republican because this country is not yet confident enough to believe there is life outside the stranglehold the Democratic and Republican parties are holding us in and because his economic ideals match what the Republican platform USED TO be, before these Obama clones in the GOP, before both Bush I & II, and before Reagan, who were all spenders, like Obama is.

    I differ on Ron Paul’s stance on abortion and on not granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants that are born within the border of this country. Regarding abortion, he would not be the one deciding on its legality, he’d simply be giving the power to decide that social issue back to each state, which is where it was originally, before the federal government’s runaway coup on states’ rights. So, in reality, it is one issue I differ on, and I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, the issues that matter most are economic policy (Fed-run vs. a free market and deficit budget vs. balanced budget) and foreign policy (hegemonic nation-building vs. minding our own business and focusing on our economy). California will not make abortion illegal, and if they ever did by some unlikely whim, I think I can put two and two together enough to protect myself and choose a partner that is intelligent enough to do the same.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: