Dictatorship and Democracy
The Penguin Encyclopedia says ‘dictatorship’
as ‘Government by absolute authority;the term may correctly be used to describe rule by a group or class but is generally confined to circumstances in which absolute power is wielded by a single person,under the form of a republic.Also, authority similarly wielded by any coporate body or community’.
There are three types of dictatorships namely (1)totalitarian dictatorship,(2)military dictatorship and (3)autocratic dictatorship. Communist and socialist nations use to practise the totalitarian dictatorship.Military dictatorship is practised by junta(group of army officers who have seized power by a coup d’`etat).A person fully controls the whole regime is known as autocratic dictatorship.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines ‘democracy’ as ‘(1)government by the people;especially:rule of the majority,(2)a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
A Burmese Student
Chaos in the New World Order
Chaos En Novus Ordo Seclorum
“Make me one with everything” – Buddhist in a pizza parlour
Unification of Europe was first – now the North American Union is in full swing – replete with fuzzy, double-speak, feel good names like Harmonization, Deep Integration, Free Trade, Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement, etc. These measures, based on negating geopolitical boundaries and securing monopolistic markets, will ultimately lead to the clash of cultures, as has already begun. Of course the elite will have a solution for the Hegelian problem they created, namely, a new world order – with themselves as puppet masters pulling our strings.
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller 2002 autobiography Memoirs
There is a small, but powerful group of individuals who are the architects and instigators behind the formation and implementation of the New World Order. Their plans represent a consciously organized attempt to bring about an end to national sovereignty and western democracy.
“David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day’s work… In the world of David Rockefeller it’s hard to tell where business ends and politics begins” – Bill Moyers
Their motivations are the age old human traits of greed and power – their instruments of control include the monopolization of corporate interests and banking, influence of political power, enforcement of laws utilizing a ruthless and centralized military, the manipulation of opinion engendered through academic circles, and the control of mainstream media which provides the necessary propaganda tool to shape public consciousness.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries” – David Rockefeller – address to a Trilateral Commission
North America is being transformed from three distinct countries – Canada, USA and Mexico, into a single economic entity called the North American Union. The creation of this new state is being implemented by stealth, virtually without opposition, and in front of an unwitting population.
“The unaware are unaware that they are unaware” – Bo Britz
The method of enforcement for the North American Union is a police state. Under the guise of keeping us all safe with anti-terrorist laws, citizens will lose their civil liberties preventing any dissent against Big Brother.
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.” – Adolf Hitler
“There ought to be limits to freedom” – GW Bush
Learning the truth about 9/11, and its integral part in the formation of the new world order, helps us to understand the concepts and objectives of the globalists. Just as this event has been used to justify such horrific acts of aggression and suppression of freedoms, we can use it to expose those who are truly responsible, and start to heal the deep wounds afflicted by such aberrations of humanity.
The ruling elite do not care about human rights, or true democracy, indeed, these values stand in the way of achieving their goals. For the current cabal, the end justifies the means, as vividly demonstrated by the events of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, just to name the most obvious. Their objectives must be implemented with the use of corruption and deceit, simply because nobody would willingly vote for the kind of world they are trying to build.
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” – David Rockefeller
I remember going to the annual exhibition in Toronto as a kid. Inside a tent this magician was waving handkerchiefs over a girl who appeared to be suspended in mid air in front of him. Because I knew that humans could not just float above the ground, I was intrigued and determined to get as close as possible, and really look at what they were doing. Sure enough, the loose drapery hanging off the table at the back concealed, upon closer scrutiny, a protruding steel bar which held up the woman. I couldn’t help but think-as I stepped once again to the back of the tent, a throng of people now in front of me-this is actually a really good trick, as long as you don’t look too close or think too hard.
That’s how I feel about 9-11. Nice try, fellas. You gave us a good dog & pony show-lots of fireworks; a quick and ready story filled with a cast of radical Muslim villains, all prepackaged for us to hate; and this guy with a beard in a cave, who can play evil mind-tricks from across the ocean-but the jig is up. And please don’t think I’m being flippant or disrespectful to the many lives that have been so tragically taken through this horrendous act and all its subsequent horrors.
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the TRUTH becomes the greatest ENEMY OF THE STATE.” – Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels
Once we expose the fraudulence of 9/11, the entire globalist agenda will tumble like a house of cards, or in this case, a “twin tower”. Understanding this event within its greater context, we can pull the lynch-pin on the plans for the North American Union, and generate some much needed chaos in the new world order.
“Three things cannot long be hidden-the sun, the moon, and the truth” – Confucius
Look up and down the streets where you live. The vast majority of people in this country, and around the world, are just honest, hard working individuals who want to build a life for themselves, raise their families and enjoy their customs.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one “makes” them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers-and then you cash in on the guilt.” – Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged”
Although most people are not conscious of the subtle and the not-so-subtle mechanisms of social conditioning we are bombarded with on a daily basis, rest assured the elite in charge have an agenda, a timetable, and the means with which to execute their objectives.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves” – Edward R. Murrow
Here are just some of the documented features and objectives of the North American Union:
- Development of a common security perimeter by 2010
- Implementation of a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers
- Unification of the border and expanded US controlled customs facilities
- A single economic space that shares a common external tariff
- A North American currency replacing the dollar and the peso that will be called the amero
- Seamless movement of goods within North America
- Labour mobility between Canada and the U.S.
- A North American energy strategy as a regional alternative to Kyoto
- A North American regulatory plan that includes “open skies and open roads”
- A unified approach on food, health, and the environment
- A permanent tribunal for trade and investment disputes
- An annual North American summit meeting
- Scholarships to Centers for North American Studies
- The NAFTA superhighway, a north-south interstate trade corridor linking Mexico, Canada and the U.S. The NAFTA superhighway will bypass U.S. entryways and allow global conglomerates to capitalize by exploiting cheap labour, bypassing local union considerations, and exposing the entire continent to potential security risks.
NAFTA , SPP, GATT, WTO and other trade agreements are the means by which the globalist political regime have expanded into North America. Different from the IMF, which can wield its power through financial dispensations to third world countries, these trade agreements supersede local regulatory powers, and through the force of national law, ensure that transnational interests are in a sense codified into each constitutional framework.
Opponents to the NAU include progressives in all three countries who believe the union would be detrimental to the average citizen. Chief among their many concerns is the loss of sovereignty and democracy, the relinquishment of authority to unelected corporations with privately contracted law enforcement, and the displacement of a workforce due to an influx of immigrants.
So what can we do? Many things. We have incredible power in our numbers and in our potential economic influence. The system would collapse without our cooperation. What we lack is the solidarity of purpose, and organization of our huge numbers.
“A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights that God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins!” – Benjamin Franklin
We are living in a critical time of change, our number one weapon in this new age is our understanding of the forces set to control us, and an effective response in great numbers from people willing to assert their independence and freedom – there was once a great country built on such ideals.
“Suddenly the whole world is not enough punishment for the wicked, nor reward for the good” – Taoist saying
We live within a duality of perception every moment. Within rages the battle of desire and reality, while on the outside, the ancient struggle between those who would work for the benefit of society, through peace, and those forces set upon exploiting others for profit and control, through destruction. Alone, we have the responsibility to assert our complete sovereignty first as individuals, and by extension of ourselves, to the greater group of which we are all a part.
Unification does not have to mean deceit and tyranny. National identities and human rights can be maintained while we come together on many things that might benefit us all. Just as we must accept the inner conflicts that cause us to adjust our desires, and with the right choices lead to a reinvention of ourselves in order to adapt, we also must recognize and challenge those external forces that would promote marginalization and exclusion of others, and create struggles that would constrain us in our inevitable choice between good and evil, and ultimately our ability to survive.
A native American grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt. He said ‘I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one.’ The grandson asked him, ‘Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?’ The grandfather answered: ‘The one I feed.’ – Native American Story
On the grand chessboard of the power elite in this world, we may only represent insignificant entities, insofar as we are concerned as individuals. However, when considered as a group, we can have considerable influence. Our strength in numbers only serves our cause to the detriment when we blindly live our lives as revenue generating hunks of flesh that serve as an economic engine for the ruling class – it is our ignorance that works against us. When we are illuminated with the light of truth and understanding, we can then use that power to influence the course of events and make the big machine grind to a halt, or at least cause a few gold hubcaps to fly off. All this can be accomplished through non-violent means, lest we sink to the level of our enemies, in which case we risk becoming that which we oppose.
“Because we are part of one existence, whomsoever you are hurting, you are hurting yourself in the long run. Today you may not realize it, but one day when you become more aware; then you will say, ‘My God! This wound was inflicted by me — upon myself.’ You had hurt somebody else thinking that people are different. Nobody is different. This whole existence is one, cosmic unity. Out of this understanding comes non-violence.” – Osho
There is room for everyone in this world. My beliefs tell me that every human dynamic resolves from its highest intellectual level down to understanding and compassion. I know in my heart that we could be caring enough to engender a consciousness where there is consideration for all people on this earth. And I know if we use our heads, we could be creative and resourceful enough to find a way to do it while abolishing the act of war itself.
That would be my New World Order.
“If one has a self – it is impossible to achieve the great oneness” – Taoist saying
Read More
Money Rules the World
Money rules the world
Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.
Who created and established the concept of this money, that is an other question. But if we go deep and think over this money concept, we come to the conclusion that money rules the world. Even today, when people have established democracies in their countries, yet the people who are rich are in the government and the people who have got no money with them are still slaves or just subjects or just voters who send these rich people to rule over them. The poor and the slaves still believe that only rich people should be allowed to sit on chairs of power and all the poor people should be satisfied if they are allowed to remain as subjects of the country and obey the orders passed by those who had been sent by the people to seats of power.
The people who are poor are given assurance that they too shall become power, but in spite of all such assurances given to the people, the people could not rise because these rich and powerful people never desired that these poor people should also rise. The people in power always side the rich people and they remain one and they exploit the position and situation of the poor people in the country. They ensure that the people should remain illiterate, unemployed, poor, houseless, must wear on rags, must starve and must suffer poverty because of rising prices and they should remain concentrating just on the subject of two time meals and nothing more. They know that they are ruling only because the people are poor and ignorant and if they are also having money and then they shall become wise and then they shall not allow these few people to rule over them. That is the reason, the main interest in the mind of the ruling classes is to keep the people poor and deprived of all the facilities of life and they are successful in all he countries.
It is very strange that in each democracy the governments are established with the votes of common people and when they are installed on seats of power, these people start working for the rich and not for the poor and they know that these rich people had not exercised right of vote in elections. The people in power have converted this election system so costly that only rich could participate in this process and the poor should remain just a voter. They are one class and they have divided themselves in political parties with different names and they play friendly matches. In one election one party wins and next time the other party can win and both are happy and when they are in the houses, they play friendly matches and the people are merely spectators and enjoy the matches. All the news papers and other sources of media start publishing and showing these matches to the people and in this way these agencies also join with the people playing friendly matches and keep the people busy for at least five years. Then these people are invited to elect the same personalities once again and give them time to play friendly matches.
The people in power keep the people busy for five years or more as the case may be. They could be playing friendly matches at international level or at national level. In the whole tenure the people are reading and seeing adverse comments on each other and the whole media remains busy reporting the same and they never talk about the common man who remains suffering in these tenures. If we have an eye on India, we shall find that none of the problems of the people of India could be solved during the past six decades and the people who are on seats of power had been growing rich and more rich and now these people are the richest class here in India and it is on record that people have been kept illiterate, unemployed, poor, without proper accommodation, are wearing rags, are beggars, are ill and are not in a position get proper treatment, they are not having any social security when they are ill or are old, they are to pay bribe and the people in power are committing scams, scandals, muddles, taking commissions, are selling jobs, quotas, licences and the like and all these burdens are on the shoulder of the people. Even the people experts in economic matters could not solve the problems of the people rather they are planning in such a manner that the poor are being reduced to more poverty.
So money shall remain ruling in all the democracies in the world and till this money concept is having more power, we shall have to accept the real meanings of the following lines,
‘ Persoo, Parsa and Pars Ram, Iss Maya Ke Teen Naam’
The poor people shall remain king makers, but they would never rise to the position of ‘Pars Ram’.
————————
Banishment is Deleterious to the Fundamental Values of American Democracy
Banishment is alive and well in 21st century America. While this may come as a surprise to most one need only look through the criminal sentences in many states around the country to see that judges still banish criminals from a particular area as a form of punishment. There exists considerable support for banishment to continue due to society’s endemic protectionist attitude. If one group of people can cast their burdens onto the shoulder of another, it is highly unlikely that such practice will change. It is, however, unacceptable–both from a constitutional standpoint and as a matter of governmental administration–to allow a single party to act in a manner that is injurious to the whole. Allowing a community, town, or state to act in so selfish a manner that it jettisons all notions of comity, sanctions a practice that tears at the very fabric of our society. This article argues that irrespective of any definable good that may come from banishment, in the long run, society’s use of banishment is a net loss. This article further argues that banishment is a violation of the First Amendment.
Declaring banishment a violation of the First Amendment is meant to encompass all sentences or conditions of banishment irrespective of the reasons for which they were given. Another danger posed by banishment is that it can be used to undermine democracy and the right of all people in this country to voice support or opposition to the governments. Only a blanket rule against banishment will prevent someone from determining ad hoc that the crime is not of a political nature and thereby “legally” perpetuating the pernicious effects of banishment.
The use of banishment violates an individual’s rights to freedom of association under the First Amendment. Freedom of association guarantees to every American the right to associate with his/her fellow citizens for the promotion of political ideas, causes, and concerns. Violation of a law undermines the will of the people, which was promulgated through the use of the political process. As such, all crimes, in essence, are political crimes. From a purely ontological point of view, “all crimes are political crimes inasmuch as all prohibitions with penal sanctions represent the defense of a given value system, or morality, in which the prevailing social power believes.” To corporately question the validity of a crime, even the most trivial of crimes, is to engage in a tempered form of political protest. When the political state power expresses its ideology, or value system, through the regulations of the criminal code, it determines the “norm of actions” (norma agendi) and, at the same time, authorizes the executive organs of the state to apply penal sanctions in order to enforce the observance of these norms or, in other words, the acceptance of the value system.
For example, it cannot be said that the issue of sodomy is not a political issue, as the one group that is singled out most frequently under these laws are homosexuals. As a result, the perpetrator of an act of sodomy could rightly be considered a political criminal. Bank robbery and rape cases are also political crimes because they evince ideological interest that the state has in protecting other people’s money and in protecting the body or sexual integrity of females. In the case of rape, one need not look back any further that the middle of the twentieth century to see that rape was all but permissible if it was done within the confines of marriage. The artificial line drawn between marital and non-marital rape has all but been extinguished in this country. The act of the crime of rape, however, did not change. Rather, it was public opinion, as expressed through the political process, which changed the definition of the mens rea necessary to commit the act of rape. Thus, whether the crime is treason, possession of cocaine, embezzlement, arson, or shoplifting, ultimately, “each is determined to be a crime by the legislator’s philosophical, ideological, and political postures.”
Admittedly, the use of the term “political crime” may seem overbroad, but it is only overbroad relative to the contemporary views of that which is considered a political crime. For the purpose of this article, a distinction needs to be made between crimes in a democracy that are political because they are promulgated through the political process (derivative political), and a subsection of such crimes that are political expressly because they are an expression of the political language (motivational political). The problem one runs into when using the expansive definition of political crimes is that in American speech, political crimes are defined in terms of what Americans see other countries doing. This is so, even though various human rights organizations assert that there are over 300 political prisoners in the United States.
Regardless of the typology used to classify crimes, criminal laws do not distinguish between the layman’s conception of what is an ordinary crime and what is a political crime. In a democracy that is reasonably free of graft and corruption, violation of any criminal law is violation of the norms and rules that form the basis for a stable political order. Whether the violation of a criminal law is politically motivated, such that the perpetrator believes his or her actions are justified by individual moral interpretation of the concept of justice, or whether the violation of a criminal law is simply the act of an immature child, in either instance, the right of the government to prosecute both is derived in the form of a mandate from the people.
Admittedly, history has demonstrated that the easiest way to rid oneself of a political agitator is to imprison them for life. One may argue, therefore, that since the United States Supreme Court has held that there is a necessary diminution of rights while in prison, should the incarcerator(s) truly wish to see the agitator silenced they could simply incarcerate them for life. Once in prison, the agitator would find it difficult to gain an audience of likeminded confederates willing to challenge the status quo. But the reality is that many times life imprisonment is not feasible due to statutory limitations, or, as with parole, the need to free up bed space. The vehicle of banishment would well serve an individual or cadre seeking to permanently disentangle itself from its political opposition. For this reason, Russia banished its offending citizens to remote geographical regions as an attempt to prevent an individual from returning to the community and forming associations. Moreover, whether the associations run afoul of probationary and parole conditions which forbid associating with the criminal element in the community, is a question that should be presented in the community where the putative crimes were committed. Failure to do so, due to the use of banishment, unconstitutionally preempts both the individual’s and the community’s rights to the freedoms of speech and association.
As explained above, the punishment of banishment is most easily justified by claiming that banishment protects the community from an indisputably dangerous man. Instead of a convicted child molester, imagine the City of Birmingham banishing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Had Dr. King been told by the State of Alabama, the civil rights struggle would have been challenged even more so. Arguably, while sitting in the Birmingham jail, Dr. King could have been considered a political prisoner, and to many people outside the south such an appellation would have been deserved. It is doubtful, however, that many people in Alabama would have considered Dr. King a political prisoner. Regardless of whether he was a political prisoner, the fact of the matter is that he was in jail for breaking a law that was promulgated through legitimate political processes. If Dr. King was a man of lesser moral timber or lesser notoriety, it is unknown whether he would have entered into a Faustian bargain for banishment had it been offered to him. Very few individuals have either of those resources in their well from which to draw, and as a consequence the individual must, in many instances, choose either continued incarceration or banishment.
Since the discretionary nature of banishment does not allow for an exact figure on the number of people banished each year, the racial makeup of those banished is also not readily available. If, however, one extrapolates from the total number of incarcerated individuals, over fifty percent of those banished are African-American, even though African-Americas only comprise twelve percent of the general population. Under the logic that racism plays a part in the high percentage of black males caught up in the criminal justice system, facially, it is much harder to accept the argument that racism does not play a major role in the banishment of African-Americans. Even if the numbers of those banished do not correlate directly with the incarceration figures, the fact remains that people are being denied their right to associate after having been convicted of violating a law. If the numbers do correlate, however, a particularly disturbing view of our criminal justice system is presented. No matter how vigorous the proponents of the notion that racism has been eradicated in out country are, if there is any correlation, such pronouncements seem to be premature.
Any discussion on race and the criminal justice system must necessarily begin with the ineluctable reality that race has sometimes “been a critical factor in determining whether prosecutions are initiated or terminated, whether the jury returns verdict of guilty or not guilty, whether certain judicial instructions are given to the jury, whether witnesses are or are not believed, and in determining the formulation of ultimate judicial rulings.” Next, add to the historical reality of racism in our criminal justice system, the neutral demographic fact that African-Americans are in the minority in the majority of voting districts in this country. The minority status of African-Americans is particularly important to the banishment argument because banishment facilitates the redistribution of political votes. Thus, banishment has the potential to be used as a means of effecting the political makeup of a town, county, or state, through the use of the criminal justice system.
Finally, take into consideration Professor Martha Duncan’s theory that a community banishes because the banished embody a contagious evil that is a contaminate in the community. A person who banished based on racial animus, more than likely believes that the banished individual is a contaminate to the community. Thus, banishment affords the racist a vehicle through which he/she can carry out his/her racial re-segregation of our country. Though in isolation none of the above are dispositive of racist motivations in banishment, in aggregation these three “pieces of evidence” inexorably point in the direction that banishment is used as a vehicle of racial discrimination in certain cases. Though it would be unfair to cast the net so broadly such that all of the officials who are charged with the judicial and/or executive maintenance of the communities are branded as racists, as Justice Holmes once said “the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” In the case of banishment, experience militates strongly in favor of concluding that, in certain instances, banishment is racially motivated and selectively enforced.
Though without a reliable sample size, admittedly, it would be quite difficult to make out a prima facie case for racial discrimination on a system-wide basis. On an individual case by case basis, and in theorizing from extrapolated data, however, the conclusion that racial discrimination occurs, at least to a limited degree, is quite logical. Even if racism is the motivation in only “selected contexts,” the system as a whole is tainted and in need of reform.
`Banishment needs to abolished, not merely monitored, such that its usage is not disproportionately used on African-Americans. To do so would be to engage in “leveling up,” in the context of racial discrimination in the implementation of the death penalty. The problem with such an argument is that banishment on any “level” is unconstitutional because it allows the redistribution of political interests through the operation of the criminal justice system. Whether banishment is used to redistribute the political influence of white supremacists is Idaho, or whether it is used to dilute the voting strength of Latino-Americans in central California, banishment should be per se unconstitutional. Banishment is a cancer on our democracy, and only its complete extirpation from our criminal justice system will ensure that its perniciously seductive appeal does not metastasize to other communities.
Both the banishing community and the entire country are presented with a quandary when the banished individual is a member of a minority. No longer is the question of community protection straightforward. In fact, it is arguable that the banishment is an intentional obfuscation of the facts necessary to determine from whom the community needs to be protected, the government or the governed. It is also arguable whether the federal government needs to intercede and ensure that the rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States are being protected. Admittedly, it would be unfair to characterize all political sub-divisions in such a nefarious light. Twentieth century history shows, and our forefathers have warned us, that when the legal system enforces laws that obstruct the free-flow of information to and from the government and the governed, totalitarianism and mistrust of government arise commensurably. Judge Frank H. Easterbrook has written that, “we would be terrified by legislation limiting political associations that are necessary to keep representative government healthy; therefore judges must ensure that legislators cannot get away with passing obnoxious laws restricting freedom of association. Though it can be argued that convicted criminals should not be entitled to the same set of rights and freedoms as those who have not been similarly convicted, banishing someone does not further a “healthy government.” When laws that sanction banishment are passed by legislators, when judges acting sua sponte impose probationary conditions of banishment, or when executive branch imposes parole conditions of banishment, society is passing through a terrifying juncture in history. Without some type of absolute constitutional governor to control the invidious effects of banishment, banishment for political purposes is not only possible, but also frighteningly real. On the other hand, should banishment be considered to an infringement on the constitutional right to associate, then “[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced.”
Such lofty aspirations are never realized, however, when banishment is employed to preempt the dialogue. Thus because banishment is most often used as a bargaining chip within the probation and parole framework, the potential for abuse is high. Few defendants have the wherewithal, either emotionally or financially, to turn down the benefit of parole or probation when offered to them. This is so, even though they may be agreeing to a condition of banishment, which is unquestionably not in their best interest. Hence, it is imperative that wherever it may occur and whatever form it may materialize, banishment needs to be ruled unconstitutional, irrespective of whether the offender was banished for political reasons or not. Only be ruling every banishment condition unconstitutional can society ensure that no where is banishment being used as a means of controlling the open dialogue on political issues.
The banishing of a criminal may well serve to protect the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of a community. The ultimate question turns on the practical cost of banishment to society. Unless one is a member of the community doing the banishing, the thought of having a convicted criminal thrust upon society is disturbing. It is particularly disturbing because the banished individual probably has little in terms of start-up capital to get himself established, and will more than likely fall into the legion of homelessness or get caught back up in the law of easy money in the criminal underworld. Either scenario bodes ill for the country struggling to get a handle on its crime problem. Moreover, banishment is antithetical to many of the purposes behind probation and parole because it is an alteration of the model paradigm into which the probationer or parolee was to be released.
Though the raison d’etre for the freedom of association argument may be the potential abuse of banishment for political purposes, the situation that is most likely to recur, and the one that in aggregation will do more to cripple our society, is where the banishment of a criminal leads to inter-community strife. The freedom of association argument seeks to eradicate all usage of banishment, and it endeavors to do so without regard to this inter-community strife, which is the most destructive result of banishment. Those who employ the First Amendment analysis in their argument against banishment must do so with equal vigor to those cases where it is clear that the banishment was not politically or racially motivated. Then, and only then, can we be certain that the insidious effects of banishment are forever extirpated from the American legal landscape. In the words of Dr. King, “[i]njustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
From a historical perspective, banishment has had the unintended consequence of the fortuitous peopling of many parts of our world. Gone are the days when the lives of those disrupted by the effects of banishment are so easily dismissed and disregarded. When a narrowly tailored sentence of banishment is micro-managed, then, and only then, will the benefits of banishment outweigh the costs. Barring such a scenario, the use of banishment undermines the very foundation of our constitutionally federated republic. The mistrust of the average American and of the local, state, and federal governments are produced by the use of banishment. Banishment is a punishment whose time has long since passed and the criminal justice system is no longer enhanced by banishment, but rather is debased by it.
Garth Snider is the General Counsel of one of the largest franchise lead generation firms online. He has a degree in finance and banking from the University of Georgia, and a J.D. from Emory University. Garth Snider served as Director for the Center for Prisoner’s Legal Association before he practiced commercial litigation at the the law firm of Griffin Cochrane and Marshall. He is presently the President of Ad Engine which is an online company providing lead generation services for franchises and small businesses. For more information about Garth Snider see www.ad-engine.net or Read More
Sierra Leone Democracy Requires More Than a Leadership Change!
By all objective standards, we must now have come to the stark realization that the “change of leadership syndrome”, with its resultant enforced public euphoria and sometimes genuine expectations of change our society has continually been subjected to with the Milton Margai, Albert Margai, Andrew Juxon-Smith, Siaka Stevens, Joseph Momoh, Valentine Strasser, Maada Bio, Ahmed Tejan-Kabbah and the current Ernest Koroma regimes have not in any significant and meaningful manner impacted our society and its peoples living standards, infrastructure, socio-economic and political development.
THE CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP SYNDROME:
The concept of the “change of leadership syndrome”, not to be confused with “democracy“, can best be described and characterized as the aspiration to and achievement of political power by a nation’s political elite, without a concomitant vision, knowledge and know-how as to how best the levers of political, economic and social power can positively be utilized in effecting change in one’s society.
This intense urge for naked political power, witnessed especially among our political leaders, devoid of any coherent and sustainable national economic and infrastructural strategy or purpose-driven agenda both in implementation and execution, remains the common bond and thread linking the current Koroma administration to its failed predecessors.
The SLPP LEGACY:
The emergence of Sierra Leone’s socio-political and economic disintegration, though not started under the SLPP government of President Ahmed Tejan- Kabbah, certainly reached monumental proportions during his 10-year stewardship, as the country remained at the bottom strata of every index used in measuring societal growth and development in the world.
Despite the rising crescendo for change leading up to the elections in 2007, the SLPP leadership and elite had become resolutely tone deaf and exhibited such callous disregard for the peoples genuine aspirations for development and change that even their traditional power base in the south and eastern regions of the country could no longer hold.
The RUF war in the 1990’s had caused untold destabilization in the country with wanton and rampant destruction of lives and property being the order of the day. The destruction was even more acute in the regions of SLPP traditional support, the south and eastern regions. The election thus of the SLPP government in 1996 and to a subsequent second term in 2002 was meant to signal our peoples overwhelming desire and hope for security, reconstruction of the country’s basic infrastructure, governance and for a sustainable economy and development.
However, despite the enormous mineral and natural resources, together with the overwhelming international donor financial support afforded the Kabbah administration, in combating not only the RUF menace but the economic challenges confronting the country, it had become glaringly clear to every objective commentator and observer, by the time of elections in 2007, that the country, and certainly the regions of the south and east, had not seen any appreciable change in their living standards and economic development.
During annual visits to Sierra Leone, between 2002 and 2007 and in social and business interactions with SLPP ministers, permanent secretaries, the police brass, parastatal heads, civil servants, business owners and a cross section of the populace, it quickly became crystallized in my mind that the SLPP leadership was not only lacking in the requisite political and socio-economic vision but was alarmingly incompetent and inarticulate in mapping out and implementing a strategy for sustainable development needed to effectuate transformation of our country in the wake of the civil war.
While the beneficiaries of the party’s largesse, in an effort at self-preservation of their way of life banded themselves into support groups like the so-called “Reform Group” and the “Friends of Solo B“, with ostentatious living and verbal and physical assaults against perceived opponents, the administration had by the elections effectively succeeded in squandering even the goodwill of the international community.
Regrettably though our compatriots by an large not only seemed to have succumbed to the avarices and greed the system afforded it’s participants, but most detrimental was their utter lack of understanding of our peoples mood for change, lack of critical thinking and policy innovation exhibited by the likes at “Stop Press” and regulars at “Jay Bees”, with whom I had come into contact. For while even the “Joe “ in the village was aware that the leadership needed to change course and direction, the SLPP was totally deluded and thus became incapable of effecting this change.
One of the most shocking aspects of the disconnect in the country was that some of the top members of the ruling elite were either former school mates, college mates and or friends who during our transformative years had engaged in the kind of development-vision discussions we all longed to see for our country. I was disappointed with the type of development projects organizations like NACSA, headed by a former college mate of mine, were embarking on as development projects.
While the construction of water wells and court barrays became the symbol of development under the SLPP administration, some of us became increasingly disenchanted as such projects only served to foster and portray the level of backwards the country was wallowing in and further epitomized the bankruptcy and vision deficiency exhibited by the leadership.
THE ERA OF “TALK-SHOPS”:
As a local musician aptly put it, millions of dollars in development assistance was being spent on workshops, seminars and “talk shops“ while essentials as electricity, roads, pipe borne water supply and youth employment were left unattended.
It was not uncommon to find people with questionable local NGOs being awarded large sums for merely organizing seminars and writing proposals or party stalwarts given contracts which knowingly would not be completed or performed at all, while the bread and butter issues relevant to the peoples welfare and development were ignored and remained unaddressed.
Such was the modus operandi permeating developmental programs operated by NACSA, SABABU Educational Project, HIV-AIDS to name but a few, whose collective legacy remains 19th century type water wells, shoddy school buildings, court barrays and non-existent project signs that dotted the cities and the nation’s countryside.
Non of the hugh resources available for development at NACSA’s disposal were channeled into creating an infrastructure for sustainable economic and jobs activity in the country. Apparently the model of the government’s development strategy was one of building court barrays, water wells, community centers and other non-economic infrastructure as “talk-shops”.
The problems of youth unemployment, lack of adequate electricity and energy, clean pipe borne water supply, dilapidated roads, corruption, lack of vision and innovation in stimulating sustainable economic growth, unhygienic environs and over dependency on NGOs and international donors, were all too conspicuous throughout the country.
To the common man, the SLPP bureaucracy and elite became increasingly viewed as not understanding their plight, not innovative in addressing the country’s problems, was out of touch with basic management risk analysis and implementation required to lift and transform their various departments, agencies and ministries into revenue generating sources, were fearful of agents of innovation and change, were corrupt to the core and lacked apathy for the plight of the average Sierra Leonean.
It was thus against this backdrop and political landscape that the 2007 elections was fought between the SLPP, APC, PMDC, NDA, CPP, PLP and UNPP parties.
THE APC PURSUIT OF THE SAME FAILED POLICIES ?
This change of leadership syndrome, devoid of any reasoned programs and policies designed, articulated and implemented to provide alternatives to the current economic malaise in the body politic of our nation, is again being manifested in the perceived polarization the country has been plunged into as a result of policies and personnel changes pursued by the current APC administration.
While, it is reasonable to expect personnel changes with every new administration, the APC must seek to ensure that “balance” is maintained in governance structures and institutions in order to promote national cohesion and forestall the perception of an imbalance and thus non- representation by their political opposition.
Whilst a host of coercive and unprogressive measures during past regimes succeeded in creating an apathetic atmosphere, I am alarmed at the preponderance of tribal political consciousness and identity witnessed among Sierra Leoneans abroad since the last general elections ushered in the APC administration. This situation if allowed to fester will in both the short and medium terms represent the single most impediment to development and a true democracy.
However, with the new Koroma administration, there is still hope that the President might reverse course and seek to rectify some of the mistakes and hurdles encountered in the learning curve this past year. For the APC’s failure to change course risks relegating it to the dustbin of unresponsive failed administrations to have dotted the Sierra Leone political landscape.
The level of our societal disintegration has continued to remain pervasive to such an extent that the recent 2008 United Nations Human Development Index again ranked Sierra Leone the very last in the world; a dubious position and distinction not unknown to her peoples, as the country has over the past decades being so placed at or near the bottom consistently and with such regularity that progressive Sierra Leoneans must step up to this challenge and spearhead policies and efforts to salvage our country.
The Finance Minister, Mr. David Carew’s recent expression of “disappointment” over the low level of donor support or “delays in the disbursement of external budgetary support” resulting in adverse economic management and budget execution, highlights a failure of the administration’s economic team in charting an economic vision, that is bold and development oriented, devoid of donor reliance, that so characterized and doomed the prior Tejan-Kabbah administration.
The APC government in order to get a handle on this economic stagnation, underdevelopment and growth must start thinking bold and designing programs not in the 300 million dollar national budget range, as is currently the case, but in the billions of dollar range. Through leveraging of the nation’s marketable mineral resources, such as along lines recently proposed by Mr. Patrick Bockari’s SLID proposals, our nation’s perennial disappointments over delays and outright non-existent pledges of external budgetary support from donors will be a phenomenon of the past.
To paraphrase a common saying, performing the same tasks and expecting always a different result is tantamount to lunacy. For as a people with a strong sense of knowledge and education, this apparent dichotomy in our political leadership’s penchant for resorting to the same old tried and non performing policies of dependency, despite abundant resources stems directly from the utter bankruptcy of initiatives and ideas coupled with the inordinate penchant for power so far glaringly exhibited, not only by the political leadership but of greater concern to this author, the educated elite that any nation must depend on to facilitate her development.
An immediate area of implementation that can help alleviate the issues of unemployment, infrastructure development and maintenance is through a coordinated pubic works program that will provide employment and training to youths while at the same time modernizing the nation‘s dilapidated infrastructure.
CONCLUSION:
The challenge thus to progressive Sierra Leoneans is to utilize and express their various expertise’s in formulating models, institutions, businesses and programs of workable alternatives to pull our nation from the near-perpetual last position on the human development index.
It is hoped that a consensus emerges in creating new models and institutions of governance to replace the old and current models of local government administration, reform of the institution of chieftaincy, health care delivery and financing, taxation, job creation, pubic works programs, management and leveraging of mineral resources towards economic development, a proactive and functional privatization program and a robust public-private partnership arrangements for management of the nation‘s unproductive parastatals.
For if we as a society were to pause and objectively reflect upon the stewardship of our leaders and their policies since independence in 1961, we will find and conclude that despite the several leadership changes, Sierra Leone has woefully failed in the pursuit of sustained socio-economic and political development deemed essential and necessary for the betterment of her peoples. Rather the country continues to plunge into the abyss and bottomless perdition of poverty and underdevelopment hitherto unknown in any society of such economic abundance and developmental potential.
Finally, we must realize that the intractable significant problems facing our nation cannot be resolved at the same level of thinking and perception as we were when they were either created by our forefathers or by ourselves. I have always believed that the change of leadership syndrome and its resultant negativity towards effective participation in our country’s economic and socio-political processes remains the single inhibiting factor to our democracy and nation‘s development. The nation’s experience must make it abundantly clear that by just engaging in a change of leadership syndrome, without addressing the essential underpinnings of societal reformation, risks bring about no significant change to the now descredited status quo.
The author, Mr. Kortor Kamara has over 25 years experience in the insurance industry both in Sierra Leone and the United States. He is a Chartered Property & Casualty Insurer and holds the Workers Compensation Claims Professional (WCCP) designation. He is a Member of the Chartered Insurance Institute (London); Certified Self-Insurance Claims Administrator-State of California; Registered World Bank Consultant and has served as a Consultant on various Insurance initiatives in Sierra Leone, including design of the country’s first Title Insurance Policy.
In addition, Mr. Kamara is a graduate of Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, 1978-1981; studied Law at both the Univerisity of West Los Angeles School of Law and the California Southern School of Law in Riverside. He is currently a Doctoral Candidate in Insurance and Risk Management.
Through association with Saddleback Re, were he serves as the Regional Manager, Africa Division, Mr. Kamara is intimately involved in the provision of reinsurance coverage, policy design, loss control, training and risk management services to the African Insurance marketplace. Mr. Kamara can be contacted at Kortorkamara@yahoo.com
www.saddlebackre.com.
Internet And Cable Tv Shake Up Democracy
Very rarely are we given the opportunity as citizens to participate in a revolution. The citizens that founded our republic participated in a revolution that has affected every corner of the earth for more than 200 years now. Our grandfathers and fathers participated in a revolution during World War II when we successfully ridded the world of Adolph Hitler and his technology of death that was sweeping civilization.
Finally we all participated in a quiet revolution when Communism fell to its knees a little more than a decade ago, and went out with a WHIMPER. It didn’t have to be that way. Millions could have died in Eastern Europe and in the USSR itself. Very quietly, this brutal totalitarian dictatorship that sought to enslave the planet quietly disappeared, and more remarkably, they all became capitalists. What a wild world we live in.
I submit to you that we are on the eve of a new American Revolution, perhaps as powerful as the birth of our democracy in the 1700′s. What has happened is that the power in this country is in the process of being re-distributed to the people themselves who are the voters. We were born as a Republic, remember the words, “And to the Republic, for which it stands,” in the Pledge of Allegiance. We are fast becoming a Democracy based on the information dispersion created by the Internet and cable television as a tool in everybody’s home.
Granted there is tremendous noise on the Internet, meaning that there is an abundance of useless information, but in the universe there are many gems, and they are on the Internet as well. Think about what has happened in just a few short years? It wasn’t so long ago, that mainstream media had a 100% liberal bias. Clearly, an objective look at ABC, NBC, and CBS would reveal their liberal orientation. From their origins to their story topics, the media always played it to the left of center. Richard Nixon would NEVER have had to resign from office if the either the Senate or the House was Republican and the media was neutral.
Today, with the Internet and Cable television, the tide has certainly evened up, and maybe swung to the other side. Dan Rather of CBS broadcast a disparaging story on George Bush and the National Guard which may have been correct, but Rather knew he couldn’t prove it. In an attempt to influence the election two weeks before the election, he broadcasted it anyway. The Internet blows up his 40 year career and forced his resignation. The bloggers were relentless in attacking Rather and it resulted in the disgraceful behind the scenes, to date never revealed story of the firing of Dan Rather. Without the Internet and Cable television, Dan Rather would still be representing his liberal bias on prime time television every night.
Traditional media and print journalism can’t stand what has happened with the Internet and cable revolution we are participating in. When Republican Congressman Foley committed political suicide by writing inappropriate sexual e-mails to young pages, you and I were able to get on the Internet and read the e-mails for ourselves to determine the guilt of innocence of this man. We didn’t need anybody with a POLITICAL AGENGA filtering it for us, and therein lies the REVOLUTION.
We are able to filter stories for ourselves. No longer do I have to listen to Dan Rather tell me what’s right or wrong. I can listen to Rather, read the NY Times, and go to the Internet and Cable TV to get additional information that the liberals refuse to divulge to me.
The following will amaze you. A month before we invaded Iraq there was a former weapons inspector on television giving an interview in which he spoke in an explosive voice. He was ranting and raving that “There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we aren’t going to find any.” I thought he was crazy, but I also said to myself, this is former weapons inspector who was THERE. He’s not a recently released patient from an insane asylum.
Now the reality is that he was right, and the President was wrong, the CIA was wrong, the military was wrong. How was this guy right, and knew he was right, and a 300 billion dollar a year war machine couldn’t get it right? I have never seen or heard from this individual again. Has he been hushed up, why no interview, articles, or books? After all, he got it right, and we all got it wrong.
The Internet is leveling the playing field. If you want to know why John Kerry lost the national election, look to the Internet. The guy was being defined by the Internet before he could define himself. I know Governor Pataki was making a joke when he said that “John Kerry has to Google himself every morning to see where he stands on the issues,” but he wasn’t so far off the truth in retrospect.
If I could have one prayer answered in politics, and I believe it’s going to be answerd, this would be it. I would like to see every candidate, liberal or conservative raise 100% of their financial backing from the Internet and be free from these Special Interests and Lobbyists that are DESTROYING the democratic basis of our country. I don’t want the drug companies to dictate pricing to Medicare for drugs for senior citizens. I also don’t want teacher’s lobbies dictating education in this country.
Did you know from kindergarten through senior year of high school, our education system ranks 16th in the world? On a college level, we rank number one and there is no one even close. Why you ask? It’s because the college system is private, and the public system is not. Even on a college level when you have public colleges like the University of California system or State University of New York system, they are world class only because they have to compete against a private system. Our public school system doesn’t compete, and therefore it is allowed to remain mediocre in the face of 15 superior systems throughout the world.
It is time for the Revolution to continue. By 2012, we will not recognize the political system in the United States as the dispersion of information shifts unfiltered to the people through the Internet’s power. We should all welcome it, and thank God for it. What a wonderful thing that we will be alive to see it.
Goodbye and Good Luck
Richard Stoyeck
November 3, 2006
Richard Stoyeck’s background includes being a limited partner at Bear Stearns, Senior VP at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb, Arthur Andersen, and KPMG. Educated at Pace University, NYU, and Harvard University, today he runs Rockefeller Capital Partners and StocksAtBottom.com Value Investing at StocksAtBottom.com
Global Referendum – Please Vote Now
