February 16, 2007

The Weedpatch Gazette

Will Bush be made “an offer he can’t refuse?”

The Bank of America is quite comfortable betraying America for profits. Our government is quite comfortable betraying America by not only refusing to secure our borders for the sake of profits, but will punish those sworn to protect our borders if they do their job. Caesar Bush and Company, corporate bosses may be laughing all the way to the bank, but there is going to be a reckoning for their being without a soul, and without a soul being without romance.

Since it is abundantly clear our government is run like The Godfather’s Mafia why isn’t someone stepping up to the plate and making Caesar Bush an offer he can’t refuse? What We the People need is someone with the courage and properly placed, someone like Don Corleone to put a gun to his head and tell Caesar either sign a contract in favor of America instead of nations like Saudi Arabia, Mexico and China, to do what is right for America, things like securing our borders and expelling illegal aliens used for slave labor and punishing those that hire them, that either his signature or his brains will be on that contract!

Of course it’s whimsical, but in my whimsy I can well imagine George Washington having the whole bunch in the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court tried for treason and hung! But it is far from whimsy to acknowledge our Triune Federal Dictatorship is run for profit benefiting only the wealthy just like Don Corleone’s Mafia, but without the romance.

Hey, did I say “romance?” You bet I did; but my use of the word must not be confused with some simplistically smarmy starry-eyed nonsense. The element of romance runs throughout the whole of The Godfather trilogy, and the saga would be nothing without this element of romance. Take away the romance of those involved in our own War for Independence and it would never have happened. The Sons of Liberty, the Founding Fathers were all consummate romantics, romanticizing all the ideals that were to be turned to calling all in whose breasts burned the intense flame of freedom, the flame of freedom from tyrants and despots, the freedom to live in liberty from the oppressor! What are Betsy Ross and our flag but symbols of the power of romance. It does no good to wrap yourself in that flag or wave the bloody shirt unless these are done in the surrounding aura and undiluted power of romance!

In “The Crossing” when Washington refuses to meet with the dying Hessian leader because he would not honor those who fight for profit he is confronted by the words of his aide, “In the end we all fight for profit.” It was the politically correct thing in the film, but could not have been further from the truth. The truth is found in the romance of that sacred honor of George Washington, that sacred honor never the handmaid to profits pledged by our Founding Fathers no amount of profits could displace. It was not profits that caused so many to suffer for the cause of liberty at Valley Forge, to respond to Thomas Paine’s cry to fight for liberty, but the romance of a promised America that was to be!

But the dark side of romance, ah, there is Lincoln’s War that would never have happened without “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” romanticizing the plight of Negroes held in slavery while conveniently ignoring the even worse wage slavery of “northern overseers” at the time as Henry Thoreau pointed out; and as Henry admitted while opposing the war with Mexico even he “could spit a Mexican with a good relish” when the martial music is playing loudly, “the trumpet that sings of fame” being a siren call, there is the basis of most wars that are propagandized by romanticizing the call to arms. In this sense even Hitler succeeded in romanticizing his vision of a thousand year Reich complete with all the art and architecture of his romantic vision for Germany. And to counter Hitler the Allies had to successfully romanticize their own call to arms.

Boris Pasternak’s Noble Prize-winning “Doctor Zhivago” brought to the screen certainly showed the romance of the Russian Revolution, and “Lawrence of Arabia” certainly romanticized the plight of Arabs. One might well say that without being able to romanticize something all other efforts to move the hearts of people to a cause, especially to the sacrificing of their lives for a cause would be in vain. And it is here where all the efforts of Caesar Bush and Company are doomed to fail. They have nothing to work with when it comes to romance.

Consider the religious fervor of our enemies; this is whipped up by romantic notions of a promised paradise to the martyrs of the Muslim religion. But America having been betrayed of its Christian heritage and culture, its Christian ideals there is no romantic appeal to counter the propaganda of Islam. When Caesar Bush made that first attempt using the word “Crusade” he was very quickly shouted down. The Crusades of old were romanticized, but the religious connotation aside no one was going to buy into a “crusade” for profits further enriching Caesar Bush and Company. But while abuses continue in the name of the Christian religion, it is patently ridiculous for detractors to make any comparison between the ideals of Jesus and those of Mohammad.

Caesar Bush and Company cannot make bricks without straw, they cannot gather Americans together in common cause without the romance of such a cause. And there is no romance to be found in calling for the sacrifice of lives just to make the wealthy even wealthier. Where is “glory” to be found in wars without romance? Consider all the books and films that glorify the sacrifice of lives in a cause based on romantic ideals. But take away that element of romance, and what have you? What you would never have is a film like “Casablanca.” And it would take the romance of a Casablanca to unite Americans once more in a cause.

However, WWII was romanticized for all the right reasons. We flocked to see Casablanca and delighted in Norman Rockwell’s America that accurately romanticized the America so many were sacrificed for at the time. But those many if called from their graves now would say “What was the point?” For those sacrificed to Korea and Vietnam, these would say “What was the point?” As Jesus made emphatically clear, there is nothing romantic about money except in instances like the widow’s mite, the story of the beggar and the wealthy man, and Judas betraying the innocent blood for money. In all such instances the romance is found in the sacrifices that distinguish between good and evil. But in the end the verdict of Jesus is to render to Caesar and to God based on the romantic concept of what belongs to either.

When I wrote “Romance: The real power and greatness of America,” I knew this was the motivation and the basis of the success of our Founding Fathers, of our War for Independence, America’s success in WWII, and I knew this seems to have escaped the notice of those like Caesar Bush and Company. You cannot pull Americans together in common cause without this element of romance being the decisive factor. Take all the words like good, fair, just, honorable, and they are all meaningless without that element of romance. And if the romance of America is betrayed by allowing the invasion of Mexico and the colonizing of America by Mexicans just to satisfy the greed of the wealthy for slave labor, if America continues to be betrayed by politicians and their corporate bosses for oil and to other nations like China for the sake of profits, no one in power can expect Americans to support such a government as we have now. There is no soul in such a government, and having no soul there is no romance.

From the time of Shakespeare on the English language is unsurpassed in expressing romance. But that most beautiful and expressive of languages is now betrayed in America by “Press one for English” and ballots printed in foreign tongues. Our very existence as a nation is threatened by those without a soul, without romance, willing to betray America for money ever as much as Judas did of Jesus.

This is not to say romance can flourish without bread; that is patently ridiculous, and despite his preaching a doctrine of simplicity in living most people would agree with Henry’s remark that “Economy is a subject which admits of being treated with levity, but it cannot so be disposed of.” But I believe many people would be happier if they would not spend so much of their lives “to keep bright the devil’s door-knobs” only to discover in the end all they were really seeking and wanted was the fulfillment of the romantic promise of “Rosebud.” Wisdom dictates it isn’t who has the most toys in the end who wins, but who you have helped along the way that really counts toward a life with any purpose and meaning, a life filled with the romance of living.

There are many helping philanthropic organizations, but philanthropy should never be confused with kindness. For example, it is no act of kindness to encourage irresponsible unproductive mouths whether in America or elsewhere to be fed at the expense of the responsibly productive who limit the number of babies to that which can be properly cared for with prospects for a future not dependent on welfare. But as to politicians that pander for votes I suffer no illusions they will pound the drum for birth control, that they will in any way attempt to interfere with the “reproductive rights” of multitudes feeding at the welfare tax trough, including illegal aliens though nowhere in our Constitution are any such “rights” to be found.

It is a pronounced hypocrisy on the part of those preaching against abortion to refuse to point out the fault of those in power refusing to encourage contraception and birth control. Were they to direct their energy to prodding politicians in this direction rather than abstinence there would be far fewer abortions. Human nature does not lend itself to abstinence, but if our nanny Federal Caesar and its legions in the various states would encourage contraception and birth control rather than reward illegitimate births at taxpayer expense the abortion problem would soon be a moot point. And it is here where economics rather than a sinister “philanthropy” at the expense of taxpayers should make its power felt.

Who doesn’t get a laugh out of Eliza Doolittle’s father telling Professor Higgins he is one of the undeserving poor and intends to keep on being one of the undeserving poor. But when any politician begins mouthing the phrase “Family values” I immediately want to ask them why they are not taking any responsibility for the millions of children born to unwed mothers, why they encourage at the expense of taxpayers the undeserving poor to continue to be the undeserving poor?

No, romance cannot exist as an orphan without bread. But when romance is betrayed for a superfluity of riches, as America is being betrayed by those without a conscience, without a soul but rather an insatiable appetite for wealth and power there is no room for romance. And being without a soul, thereby being without romance our present leaders are doomed. Someone will make these Judases “an offer they can’t refuse.” It may come by that terrorist nuclear bomb going off at LAX or DC, but that “offer” is going to be made.