thelastnegro.com

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

 

The Media and wars

 

Yes, this is an intended citizen’s indictment.  In days gone in World War II the media reported battles encountered and won or lost incidentally the lives lost on both sides.  Pearl Harbor was a United States possession announced as attacked by the Japanese incidentally the lives lost.  Iowa Jima, Guadalcanal and the Meuse in Europe were battles challenged and reported as won or lost and, again, incidentally the lives of both sides lost.  In our today’s wars, the media announce no battles won or lost; or, no front lines defended established or not established by the media, only the lives lost by those in the United States military.

 

When no lives are reported lost is that a won war?  Due to the amount of enemy loses, collateral or otherwise, measure a war won?  Do the lives lost by our troops justify a give up of a war, won or lost?

 

Killing the enemy, murder, rape and torture do not win wars.  What wins wars is the placing of the lives of the innocent in jeopardy causing the will of the people to resist and their leaders surrendering their country.

 

The will of the leaders supported by the people may never be a win as we continue to have people willingly supporting slavery, civil discrimination and death and killings in our own United States.  In Germany there continues a will to be the superior race; and, in Japan there continues to be a will to in some way overcome the abuse in the dropping of the Atom Bomb.  However, the wars stopped; and, the wars stopped because the leaders saw no need to continue to place the lives of their innocent citizens in jeopardy.

 

With wars against a people or designated hitters, terrorists, there is no accepted one with the ability or the authority to sign a treaty of surrender; and, there is no one to protect the lives of the innocent whose lives are in jeopardy.  Wars are actions against nations as nations have the ability to surrender.  Terrorists have no leader recognized sufficiently to sign a treaty of surrender, a basic 101 intelligence scenario.

 

Leaders are an acceptance by the opposition or the proposed leaders disappear from importance.  The media has impressed societies with the threat of loss of lives, torture and other heinous actions of wars to be the standards for winning.  Wrong, it is not the lives lost or saved in battles; it is an ability to change the will of leaders of nations or groups; and, or the causing of the collateral innocent people to discontinue or reduce the threats of the lives of the innocent that causes nations to sign treaties of peace.

 

Strategies mean very little in wars and outcomes must be predictable.  The major outcome expectation is to win.  The United States has won wars because it has only fought two wars without having intention to win, Korea and Viet Nam.  The Korean and Viet Nam wars were fights with intentions of changing the will of the people.  The United States and their ability to change the will of the people were ideals predicated on disrespect for the leaders of the people that the people had respect to follow in the first place.

The media now caught in a mode of sensationalism and a specified belief exhibit that lives lost and not lost are more important to report than the actual progression of the war.  Loss of lives only reinforces sound reasoning for no war in the first place; and, the saving of lives sustains only one theory, get out!

 

What would happen to the will of the people in either the United States are their opponents if towns, land and beaches of battles were a media announcement as wins?  What would happen to the will of leaders committed to terrorism if the media refocused on lands, buildings or areas of geography that are booty in battles?   There is no apparent booty in the killing of people.

 

United States has but one option to win wars and that is direct its declaration of wars against nations.  Declaration of war against terrorists, drugs, crime and other non-nations is a no-no and will never cease or find peace as there is no one in charge sufficiently respected to surrender.

 

Declare war against a nation will of course place the lives of the innocent in jeopardy; however, this will press the innocent to overthrow their government is search of peace.  The nation that allows housing, identification and birth rights are responsible for the actions of her citizens so authorized; and, they will be the ones to stop terrorism.  Any terrorist found with a nation’s passport will cause that nation to be responsible, end of story.  World peace must become the pursuit of all nations and the limits of weaponry must be to pursue world peace, not control of any sovereignty of any nation or her people.

 

Mr. Krim M. Ballentine

Constitution Philosopher/The Last Negro

Post Office Box 305396

St. Thomas, US, Virgin Islands 00803

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

 

Who owns the United States of America?

 

Has “(W)e the people…” lost its way?  Have we the people living in the United States allowed the government to become the “(W)e…” in the Constitution?

 

Corporations and stockholders have become the end-users of our capital economy form of government.  The stock market and stockholder ups-and-downs of our stock purchases govern our economic concerns and the end-user, those “we,” in our Constitution suffer.  Corporate loses and intellectual gambling of persons speculative attempts to make a profit has thrown our economic stamina into a down spiral.

 

Our Congress allows corporations treatment as people; and, the federal bankruptcy laws are the only alternative to an individual’s economic failures.  A former President declared “War” in the September 11^th blow up of privately owned buildings by civilian criminals causing the responsibility for a citizen’s response.  Did the declaration of war deny insurance coverage for the acts?  Without the declaration of war the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would perform its functions, disaster repair assistance.  Taxpayers would have supplemented the restoration costs.

 

Did the declaration of that former President make it the responsibility to secure air flights in commercial aircraft at taxpayer expense?  Federal buildings protected against terrorists’ threats while the civilian commercial buildings remain vulnerable now routine.  Are citizens in danger only on federal property when only one federal building was allegedly attacked, the Pentagon, a place citizens normally do not patronize?  Is the only concern federal buildings, employees and the national defense, a non-entity in the Constitution of the United States?  The Constitution of the United States mandates a concern for “common defense.”

 

Did the declaration of war authorize the President to dictate seizures non-contraband materials from passengers aboard a commercial privately owned aircraft?  Even weapons may by any passenger carried on any commercial vehicle if declared.  How can a commercial airlines owner raise baggage fees and passenger ticket costs while the taxpayers pay to make their travel safe?

 

Yes, the attack on commercial aircraft using those aircraft to crash civilian buildings by civilians is a horrendous and heinous act however it must not be a costs of taxpayers.  The loss of lives must not be the responsibility of a nation’s people; and, if the acts are acts of war then war is declared.  Can war be declared against people or are war declared against nations responsible for the people performing war acts?  United States stands tall in holding persons with American passports or residence for crimes committed anywhere and other nations must hold accountable for the acts of their like persons.

 

Political parties, interest groups, conservatives and liberals seem to forget citizens of these United States are persons represented by them and their service not their parties of interest.  President does not realize it is not his healthcare reform plan but the citizens of the United States’ healthcare initiative; and, if conservative believe that citizens would sit by while people, illegal or otherwise , are in need of healthcare while they die they have another thought coming.  Americans help anyone in need of help, healthcare or country care.  We die in Iraq and other countries attempting to share our peace why should we now ignore aliens in our healthcare initiatives?  White, African Americans and political interest groups are part of the “we” in the Constitution of the United States and that concept must prevail.  We the people own the United States and will fight to continue that ownership.

 

Other than the United States Marshals Service, Homeland Security has authority to exercise unilateral law enforcement authority to enforce all federal laws.  A monster has been born without limits or accountability for its acts and without published limits on the authority assumed.  The United States Marshals Service never received encouragement to misuse the unilateral authority of their oaths; professionalism and character were the ultimate challenges.

It is hard for one to overlook or disregard the horrendous attacks and lives lost in the incidents of September 11^th however that must not be the reasoning to avoid and ignore the Constitution of the United States.  Terrorists are criminals not representative of a nation state and no one is sufficient in control of terrorists to sign a treaty of peace if they lose.

 

The United States and other nations especially Iran are possessors of advance weapons potentials no longer intimidating to others.  The weapons cocked and loaded without the zeal to fire.  The aircraft and weapons too advanced to use; and, the public frowns on the use of advance weapons against people, innocent or combatants.

 

In order to win war in Afghanistan or against people and non-nations the offensive nations’ weapons of intimidation are bodies in today’s world.  Bodies are the looked for weapons in Iraq where the bodies were used to blow persons to their deaths against useless advanced weapons of the United States.  People sign peace treaties on behalf of nations, incidentally the collective people of that nation.  Whom do the terrorists sign for in wars?

 

The media in a people against people war recognizes no gains to report they only can see losses of human lives and their reports of same undermines the war against people.  Gains such as Wake Island, Battle of the Bulge or San Juan Hill or even the 38^th parallel were gains to report negating the loss of lives for those gains.  If the media had reported the lives loss in those gains the outcry would have been “bring the troops home.”  We the people own the United States and will not allow ownership by interest groups, conservative, liberal or political, bankruptcy, war or terrorists to fall in the hands of others.

 

Mr. Krim M. Ballentine

Constitution Philosopher/The Last Negro

Post Office Box 305396

St. Thomas, US, Virgin Islands 00803

Friday, October 30, 2009

 

Media Beware

 

Sensationalism in the media seems to be the road to the Pulitzer.  How many truly believe that our media of today earns the Pulitzer?  How many even have a notion of the qualifying factors making one eligible to win the Pulitzer?  We have hinted to conclusions about the Nobel Prize with as little information, why not the Pulitzer?

 

What is investigative reporting and how accomplished?  How is ethics in news reporting and dignity in delivery of free press information an expectation in free press scenarios?  Is access part of our free press and free speech freedoms?  The media’s methods have made litmus tests not supported by law in the general reporting of the news.

 

Courts allowing sources of the media as confidential information without exposure is an implication that free access and violation of the public’s privacy is not a part of any free press scenarios.  Freedom of information act bye, bye.  Using the Freedom of Information Act are citizens now denied the same sources confidentialities in the United States?

 

Suppose the lives lost in any single battle of wars prior to Viet Nam were by the media reported with such urgency each news period do you think wars would have continued?  Our advanced weapons have past conventional war and now only lives lost are significant measures of winning or losing.  Gains not known and not found in today’s media reports.  In a war involving 100,000 more or less men and women with loses amounting to eight or ten a day is not sensationalism needing sensational reporting? 

 

By the media reporting lives lost without the hint of any gains are they implying that if no lives are lost the war must and can continue?  Friendly fire and accidents need not list as direct war deaths as that many military personnel die each day on our posts and bases in the United States allegedly out of harm’s way.  Lives lost is never a reason to run from bullies.

 

Have we allowed sensational incidents to be the mainstay of news reporting?  And, is sensational reporting a mainstay and the correct road to the almost sacred Pulitzer?  Joe Pulitzer must be bawling.  Media report the news and leave commentary and editorializing to Andy Rooney who do an excellent job.  Give the Pulitzer a chance to seek you and your reporting methods.

 

Mr. Krim M. Ballentine

Constitution Philosopher/The Last Negro

Post Office Box 305396

St. Thomas, US, Virgin Islands 00803