Thursday, April 10, 2008

One Who Would Serve

by Robert L. Gisel

Being in a position of service only gives one the right to serve. As a poilitician is a civil servant it would stand to reason he is one who serves the people who elected him. Herein lies the failure of American statesmanship and our world diplomatic personality.

If the point of Lions for Lambs was too cryptic it was not missed by outspoken people like Naomi Kline, Brian Michels and Charley Sheen. The Republican niche group of neoconservatives would turn all political action into a super-capitalism money making proposition. The implementation of this into reality in our government translates into yet another form of fascism.

Only one candidate today has the courage to stand apart from the self-serving aims of the neoconservatives. Ron Paul has consistently held his ground in stating his views of how the people would best be served without the hackneyed spin of the money mongers.

The way the press slant colors the presidential campaign it would seem that McCain is the chosen one to carry the banner for the neocons agenda launched by the first Bush administration of which the current president is just carrying the ball of the father's legacy.

When you are attacked and you have to go to war you get in and get it over with quickly. You don't drag it out for 6 years. Making the maximum amount of profits for the longest possible time - that's what corporations do. It is not what armies do. Restore freedom and let the people get on with it.

Unless profits is what you had in mind in the first place.

Is there anything worse in store for our great country than money-grubbing civil servants? Money motivation for an elected politician is not only highly immoral it can be downright illegal.

The hallmark of the neoconservative is an extreme favoritism of the "haves and have-mores" as the President put it. This while he struts his pearls in defense of war to prove he has the cajoles macho enough to be a president. My appologies to Clinton for the male analogy but then isn't she putting this forth as well as the American woman who would ignore her husband's blatant infidelities that were even the subject of impeachment hearings. She would have to, it would seem, have some condoning agreement with the "men will be men" or some sort of psyche-based false datums justifying Mr. Clinton's out-ethics.

Clinton has stated some views as if she would strike out on her own politic but her overall campaign has changed regularly with the sway of the polls. One gets the idea she would sadly only be party to the temptations of compromising neoconservative special interest groups.

Obama comes across on a cursory view as one who would take up the call of serving the people. However when an attack was launched against him questioning if he was a Muslim and whether he was in the wrong camp he broke into a tirade in defense of America with a voice that smacked of strained justification and weak relinquishment of his own integrity in support of the neoconservatives. One doesn't get reassurance Obama would be steadfast in serving the people and the constitutional oath of the presidency when faced with pressures brought to bear by greedy politicians.

You can definitely follow a consistency by Ron Paul who is openly outspoken in his platform and steadfastly stands by the constitution, rights and freedoms. Even when he took a hit where a racist article had in the past been erroneously posted in his name he took responsibility for that, simply re-stated that he is not a racist and did not get pulled down into the petty game of low blow politics.

This truely exhibits a Jeffersonian beingness that this country would do well by during these times that try men's souls with daily assaults on the foundation that made this country great.

It is not my intention to throw my hand into the political counter plays of the presidential campaign. On the contrary it is a broader view when one reads the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, steps back, views the problems of our sovereign country and sees how this Declaration pronounces a common thread of all mankind.

If this were understood and fully embraced in our diplomatic stance in the world we would not now be embroiled in a war in Iraq that appears we cannot walk away from, shades of Vietnam, that compromises us in the world community and illustrates our country as the new world bully.

The trillion dollars spent on the war in Iraq is evidence enough this is about money. That Saddam Husain was a tyrannical psychotic totalitarian dictator is undeniable. Bringing him to justice for his crimes against humanity did not require a trillion dollar bill and the lives of non-combatant men, women and children. It is too painfully obvious that the best interests of the humanity in Iraq was no consideration in the decision to take up arms against that nation.

If we really were out to rid the world of a mad dictator who truely deserved to be hanged for his crimes against humanity the feat of bringing Saddam Husain to justice could have been accomplished in diplomatic policing choices available on probably less than 1/100,000 the trillion dollar bill for the Iraq war. No, it is about money and using the body politic to grab for oneself as much as possible.

There are always choices in diplomacy and statesmanship. It is the intention that makes the difference - is it for the greatest good of all or is it an evil and secretive desire to line one's own pockets.

While the neoconservatives are out glorifying this war it has gone unnoticed that the the guiding principle of inalienable rights held by all mankind does offer up viable solutions and highlight those would be politicians who chose to ignore these principles to serve themselves, the neoconservatives, and who would blatantly ignore the truth that the presidential oath of office is really about serving the people.

One man would genuinely and honestly serve the people. Ron Paul deserves a lot more attention and support in the ongoing presidential election.

Here is a link containing Public Service Announcements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: