factbat.com

In the current democratic scheme which claims to be a representation of the people’s will, a selection of candidates which neither represent, nor codify the average sentiment of, the citizenry of this nation is perorating the voice of the people prematurely with derisive language which has far too long enabled despotism to bolster its position in the very minds of the masses.

With a close look at the candidates now tangling for the opportunity to fill the seat left vacant by “the lion of the senate”, the late Edward M. Kennedy, it becomes blindingly apparent that this nation must begin the process of true democracy with more than merely a default selection of “war and less autonomy” or “war and less liberty”.

Scott Brown, a Republican from Massachusetts who is running for senate against Democrat Martha Coakley, may be the best candidate for the position, but by a very narrow margin.

He favors free enterprise and believes that lower taxes can spur growth and create jobs. He opposes bigger government and wasteful spending. A vague position, but no less desirable.

He also has an admirable stance on education and appears most in favor of raising standards and supporting charter schools, rather than excessive government involvement.

On the subject of immigration Brown claims that America’s strength is built on the immigrant experience. He is in favor of legal immigration, and is opposed to offering drivers licenses and benefits to illegal aliens.

Unfortunately he begins to falter when he states that America is a nation of laws, rather than the fact that it is a government of laws and a nation of people. The incessant authoritarian structure of government which habitually intends to exercise powers and controls which it is not allowed under the constitution has reaped for this country an incredibly balkanizing economic and social structure that is now languishing under myriad laws and regulations that do not in any way serve the peoples’ best interests and rarely redress the issues they are meant to support.

Brown has admirable intentions in the area of Veterans’ Affairs, however, it would be refreshing to see a republican who voiced some consternation with the violent strategy of pre-emption now being lauded as a viable alternative to diplomacy since the Bush-9/11 fiasco. It is likely he will vote to supply the huge war spending now being requested by Obama.

On the second amendment issue Brown begins to show promise when stating that he believes American’s have a right to keep and bear arms as a basic constitutional liberty. However, he does not say it is an inalienable right. Furthermore, he “supports safe and responsible gun ownership”, which appears to leave the door open for gun grabbing.

He gets an “F” for his support of the death penalty and claims that some crimes are so heinous that they deserve capital punishment. He believes the government should have the right to impose the death penalty in cases where it is justified. Unfortunately the government can rarely objectively decide such matters and as well the death penalty is one of the worlds most hideous and disingenuous complacencies which allows far too much lethargy and denial of the true fact that there are only solutions in this world and thus all are responsible for the equations which net those persons in society which clearly expose the worst in us all.

To kill anyone is irresponsible and illogical and enables far too much recidivism within the society as a whole. Moreover, it is still far too common to see people being framed and falsely accused of crimes they can be executed for, and the bar is lowering in this turbid contemporary arena of shadowy power brokers and invisible enemies.

Sadly he believes that government has the right to regulate abortion, rather than give the people more power to govern their communities and media in such a way that reduces the sale of sex and drugs and abrogates the incessant assault on, and manipulation of, the sensibilities of the nation’s youth.

With vacuous morbidity he actually supports the ethnic barrier in Israel, and even has the nerve to claim “As our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel lives every day under the threat of terror yet shares with America a dedication to democratic ideals, a respect for faith, and a commitment to peace in the region. Until a lasting peace is achieved, I support the security barrier erected by Israel which has proven successful in protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks.”

Israel has no such commitment to peace and has proved that clearly with over 70 years of mistreatment of the Palestinians. The recent events are nothing compared to the torment and upheaval Israel has created for its neighbors in the region. Including its invasion of Egypt at the behest of American interests when Egypt decided to circumvent the oppressive policies imposed on them which forced them to negotiate with Russia to raise the Nile river delta.

Can anyone truly support a nation who’s government has legalized assassination, uproots trees as penalty, demolishes homes as penalty - just more frame-up structure to steal homes and land - uses children as human shields, manufactures gas grenades for the sole purpose of aborting human fetuses, murders peaceful American activists with impunity, and so on?

It is also a bit puzzling that he is comfortable with Israel stockpiling nuclear weapons but takes an incredibly hard line against Iran’s seeking peaceful nuclear technology. If this nation will recall, there were no WMDs in Iraq. As a diplomat, it is surprising to read that the man has no interest in diplomacy. But then possibly he is merely a politician like Obama. The party line does become a bit blurry with this man.

He is quoted as saying “I support the bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill and believe that until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions he should be isolated from the rest of the world. With his reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran represents the biggest threat to Israel. Ahmdinejad is a Holocaust denier who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Meeting with him confers legitimacy when the only correct response is to treat him as an outcast. A personal meeting with Ahmadinejad, as suggested by my opponent, would embolden him and be used as a propaganda tool to strengthen his position.