Interesting Blogger

Thursday, November 3, 2011

American “nation” worship: a figment of imagination

After reading the political classic by Gore Vidal, The American Presidency, I have thought about what I consider to be the American imperial machine. Part of that is the belief in nationalism.

First one must understand what nationalism means. The Pan-Nationalist Movement gives a fine definition of the world. They write in response to a Frequently Asked Question: “Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of "nation," or population group unified by culture, heritage and language. As such, Nationalist is "rule by culture" where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.” Later, the website mentions the idea of a nation + a state (country), called a nation-state. This concept is abstract and it tries to “unify its populations who have little in common on a cultural or ethnic level, and so become competing cultures. These [nation-states] usually take the form of an absolute which will never be demonstrated as being singularly right or wrong, like "freedom" or "free trade," but in the absence of cultural unity what brings people together is economics. Economics thus replaces culture, and soon every object and idea and person is for sale.” Many American politicians today follow the opposite belief of Pan-Nationalism, the idea that each ethnic/cultural group gets their own nation. These political figures try to advance America toward a pure nation-state, where profit is the ultimate motive and where the people are one culture. But that is not possible in the “melting pot” of the United States.

It all started with President George Washington. Adding the states of Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee during his two terms (1789-1796) led to a push to take over the whole continent. Then, under Thomas Jefferson (early 1800s), unilaterally, without the consent of Congress, the 885,000 square miles, the “Louisiana Purchase” was bought for over $27 million. This expanded the United States further westward. Many years later, in the 1830s, Andrew Jackson continued that tradition. During his presidency, 93 treaties were broken with Indian tribes and under the Indian Removal Act; Indians were forced across the Mississippi River, all in the name of expansion. James Polk continued on, adding Texas, California and much of the southwest in a two-year war with Mexico, called the training ground for the Civil War. That brings me to Abraham Lincoln, who just wanted to “preserve the union” but through dictatorial means. Newspapers were shut down, habeas corpus was suspended, the Supreme Court was defied and martial law was declared in several states all in the name of “military necessity” and preserving the union. The word union can be easily swapped with “nation,” so in essence he was the creator of the idea: America is a nation. While I would go through the rest of history with invalid presidents like Rutherford B. Hayes, talk about the planning of the American empire by four figures in politics (Captain Mahan, geopolitical thinker Brooks Adams, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Teddy Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge), imperialistic President William McKinley and so on, I will reserve that for a future discussion.

What must be discussed is the idea that America is a nation. To do that, I’d like to look at what President Obama has said about it and go from there. In a recent speech about climate change, the President spoke about: “the Nation's future health and economic prosperity” and how “The Federal Government will work in partnership with states and local communities to help make our nation more resilient.” So, is he trying to say that all of those who live in this country are part of one nation? That doesn’t follow proper logic. Native Americans, who I mentioned earlier, are on reservations and have their own culture. That makes them not part of the greater “nation.” Also, foreign national and non-citizens including so-called “illegal immigrants,” foreigners, green card workers and others have different cultures. In addition, each ethnic and racial group has its own culture and beliefs. As one writer on AlterNet described it, there are 11-12 different cultures in the United States. This conjures up a number of different questions. Then, how is America a “nation?” Why is the intergovernmental organization, United Nations, not called the United Association of Countries?

To find out, one must look at the UN Charter itself. The charter calls these entities “our respective governments” in the preamble. But, that’s not all. In Article 1, it states a purpose of the United Nations is to “develop friendly relations among nations.” However,Article 4 clarifies this, supposedly. According these sections “membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states…[and] the admission of any such state [with]… a decision by the General Assembly [and a]…recommendation of the Security Council.” In Article 14, the words “general welfare or friendly relations among the nations” is mentioned, in Article 32 non-U.N. members are called states and in Article 55 the “friendly relations among nations” is mentioned once again. In Article 110 of the charter it calls on “all signatory states” and “states signatory to the present Charter” to ratify it. As a result, I conclude that the U.N. is not completely clear on the issues, so it unsure if the organization was created to promote nationalism or just the maintaining of states.

Also to determine the degree of nation worship, one has to investigate our President’s speeches on the matter using the White House search engine. In the wake of Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting in Arizona, Mr. Obama called for the nation to heal its wounds. How can that occur if an American nation is a figment of imagination? To put it simply, a “nation” encompassing all of the territory of the United States of America does NOT exist; it is only divided groups of people. One may ask why this matters. This matters because it eliminates the assumption that there is one common language, history and traditions. American Indians don’t drill in the plateau they live on, trucking water in. Intellectuals on the East Coast get water pumped to them daily. In the end, one must look beyond the “nation worship” rhetoric and see the evils of the American empire, not clouded in extreme patriotism.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

The America you don’t know: elitism and pluralism

In the multifaceted American political system, the elite theory and pluralism theory can be combined to explain the political process. Special interest groups, the reemergence of the elite, the phenomenon of the apolitical and political stratum and default of compromise have been changed with the age of mass global communication. In America, people think about politics as two different aspects. First, the political spectrum presented by mainstream media. Secondly, the idea that it doesn’t matter if they participate and government doesn’t affect them at all. The current economic crisis changed the complex political system by shaking government and consumer confidence. However, even with these changes political scientists Robert Dahl and C. Wright Mills are both right in some sense. Military elite, corporate elite and interest groups remain powerful. Americans are divided into political and apolitical strata while compromise is the basis of this democracy. On the other hand, the current age has proven Dahl and Mills wrong. Educational and religious institutions are really separate; leaders often only care about themselves. 24/7 News has born with the advent of more technology and dissatisfied people are creating groups to address their grievances.

Certain groups dominate the modern political scene. People’s needs are ignored at times while the small groups of lobbyists are appeased by government officials. Interest groups have the power in national, local and state politics to force people inadvertently to choose a side on a law or proposed policy. Since the Obama Administration has been in office, influence of special interests has played out on the floor of Congress in two different instances. Healthcare reform in 2010 was supposed to bring healthcare to more citizens, but people were forced to buy private insurance. The law was an uneven proposal because it was almost co-written by the industry, contradicting the point of the bill: to stop the abuses of the healthcare industry. Later that year, a major financial reform bill was signed into law, trying to stop another economic crisis. Like the healthcare law, the bill was supported by of lobbyists from Wall St, an institution the law was trying to limit. It’s easy to see that Congress is run by lobbyists since its makes it hard to get reforms passed. Also it has become extremely easy for the elite to manipulate members of the federal legislature or any other part of the federal government.

The elite have reemerged in the American political woodwork. Mr. Mills’s vision in The Power Elite of separate corporate and military elite is true. These “leaders” still occupy high positions of power and use fearmongering as a common tactic. The corporate overlords distract public with entertainment news, something that’s not important to their well-being. In addition, they convinced the government to approve certain mergers while lessening regulation so their profits can increase dramatically. Meanwhile, the influence of the military elite in Congress has caused cuts to not be enacted even as their bureaucracy is becoming a hazard to America’s financial stability. Through the continuation of certain wars, a permanent war economy is maintained and endless war could become a reality. Therefore, corporate and military elite coalesce, creating an interlocking power structure. This country is going bankrupt from expenses that help the military and corporate overlords prosper. One prominent example is private military contractors in foreign countries that outnumber U.S. troops. On another note, the mainstay of the military elite, the Pentagon is so centralized that it can’t account for ¼ of what is spent. Furthermore, “Too Big to Fail” corporations dominate the economy while people across the nation are divided into two major political groups.

Robert Dahl wrote about in Who Governs?, the division of people into different strata in America’s political arena. Politically active people protest injustice while inactive people accept injustice. In the apolitical stratum is characterized as people blindly ignorant of political issues and those who think politics is not important to them. At the same time, the political stratum is the polar opposite with motivated citizenry want to go out on the street. These people encourage others to get involved through the blogosphere and other means. Even so, the small supposedly-united groups called the “Tea Party” are just another aspect of the apolitical spectrum. Those that participate in these groups mostly have inconsistent opinions and ideologies. For example, many in these groups are against government healthcare, yet they support programs like Medicare, a blatant contradiction. These weakly-informed citizens try to inject themselves into the political mainstream but are mostly unsuccessful, ridiculed by many others. Despite this, overall political awareness has grown in recent years with more young people are getting involved in process whether that is in voting, protesting or blogging. The 2008 election was highest turnout for young in a very long time, but it doesn’t change the reality of compromise in the United States.

The default of compromise is accepted by almost everyone talking about politics or trying to get their point across. It is a time of divided government and the citizens want everyone in Congress to work together. However, many bills have favored wealthy and privileged class of society. America is a country founded on compromise. In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, two compromises were made between the delegates: the three-fifths compromise and the great compromise. This created the mentality that everything must be solved by going for the middle road, taking all ideas into consideration. This isn’t always the right pathway as the idea you may be accepting could be wrong and horrible policy. Despite this, the Senate’s limit of 60 has made agreement required on almost everything passed. Concessions are needed to pass anything, even a bill about the Post Office. Reform legislation that was supposed to fix problems in society has been watered down time and time again. People are getting mad and dismayed as Mr. Dahl predicted. They just can’t take the endless bargaining anymore and are fed up with government. Approval rating of Congress is at an all-time low: 14%. Compromise is isolating the citizenry causing them to be disfranchised of their right to express their opinion to Congress. As a result, political action groups are popping up nationwide; something not predicted by either Mr. Dahl or Mr. Mills.

In the modern era, Dahl and Mills have to be tweaked because their theories won’t be true if something isn’t changed. Both political scientists were writing in their time, the 1950s and 1960s and before the digital revolution (1980s-Present). These factors change the ballgame in political relations. Today, leaders aren’t always on side of people. Some politicians worry about getting reelected. Others are influenced by corporate and military elite to vote in certain ways. Educational and religious institutions have been proven separate from the corporate and military institutions for the most part. Schools teach people to have independent minds in their lives. Many different religions such as Unitarian Universalism preach the seeking of truth in your beliefs. News is more extensive and rapid in the present with first-hand accounts of events posted on YouTube that are used by the mainstream media in their reporting. Also the alternative media is challenging corporate media dominance. All of these changes have caused people to create groups/pages due to their dissatisfaction with certain policies on social networks or elsewhere. The increase in political action could be the return 1960s fervor returned in minds of some young people or expression could be increasing with the advent of new technology.

Even with the division of America into an apolitical and political stratum, people are more educated than before. As some users have said, the internet allows information to disseminate so people can decide for themselves what they believe. A forum to exchange ideas has been created, provided that it stays free from censorship or government intervention. On the other hand, elite theory and pluralism continue to plague efforts to expand democracy to other corners of the globe. This flawed system is continued in America by societal and corporate-backed forces of greed. Even with its backers, the political system can be altered in two major ways: direct action, such as blocking a road to area being logged and expansion of the blogosphere with “blogger-journalists.” Everywhere around us, the world is always changing, a place where mass communication networks can be harnessed and where people must stand up for what they believe.

NOTE: This article/essay was originally for my US Government class but I thought you people would enjoy it.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

The #occupywallst movement

Picture from protest (on its first day) that I took from the live feed

It was a regular Saturday on September 17th except for one fact. Over 5,000 protesters descended on Wall Street to rally against corporatocracy. But, the New York Police Department (NYPD) had got there first, walling off the street and the iconic symbol: the bull. Even though they had planned to occupy Wall Street, it just wasn’t possible with the police presence so they moved into a nearby park, Zuccotti Park, which they dubbed Liberty Plaza. The peaceful action was called a “Marxist Day of Rage” by some its critics and not radical enough by others. Really most of those participating were progressive or anti-corporate. I’m not saying that socialists, anarchists or anonymous supporters were not attendance but they were not in the majority.

Average citizens across this blue planet are outraged. Corporations, especially huge monopolistic ones, are cheating the people of the world. Governments are siding with these oppressive companies. So people are getting fed up. In the Mideast, people have protested against the authoritarian governments, causing the fall of two dictators, one in Tunisia and another one in Egypt. This fervor extended to Europe in the May15Movement or the European Revolution, which I talked about earlier this year. Europe is continuing a revolution of ideas it started earlier this year, which is now blossoming in America. To jumpstart this process, independent activists are preaching the end of corporate power in politics and organizing events to stop an injustice.

The broad spectrum of differing perspective brings angry citizens together from across the country. In Adbuster’s original message announcing this event, they asked for help in finding their central demand. Since then, Noam Chomskians have taken the upper hand, being the most active and calling for the abolishment of corporate personhood. Others have partially followed Texas Representative Ron Paul’s economic doctrine, calling for the end of the Federal Reserve. The mainstream of the movement is directing the most energy being at big business. The radical nature of some of the attendees like the Democratic Socialists of America, those that say the “rich are killing us” and those that say capitalism are evil and want to overturn the current economic system are in the fringe but some of their more rational ideas mesh with the attitudes of other protesters. In addition, these people are in the fringe because they don’t have consensus of what to replace the current economic system, while most of the protesters just want to modify the current system.

After the first days of protests, a mammoth effort was underway even though only about 500 stayed for the night, sleeping on the ground in sleeping bags. Some say it was even more like the cameraman on the UStream Channel, Mobile Broadcast News who said he counted over “1,000 heads.” No matter what number you choose, one can’t question the fact that people were fired up, walking down Wall Street (on Saturday and Sunday) and shouting their message. Later, they were not allowed on Wall Street during the rest of the week because it was open so they protested from afar. According to one bystander, shouts could be heard two blocks away. While this was happening, the police controlled the situation and protesters were not fighting back, they were following orders. Despite this, I would estimate that about 10 people were arrested a few days ago, but all were quickly released according to reports on twitter. Meanwhile, activists used a twitter account, OccupyWallStNYC to coordinate the buying of food and other supplies for those that remained, which they called (and still call) #needsoftheoccupiers. If there are 2,000 protesters in New York City, I would say that three to four times that are part of the movement on Twitter. Even the official twitter organizing account has over 5,000 followers. Adding this together about 16,000 people on Facebook plus 2,000 on the ground in NYC and maybe 10,000 people on twitter equals about 28,000 as part of the movement! While this movement has blossomed, the group in New York got the most media attention which only fully accumulated after the first day of protests had elapsed.

The Real News Network had the best account of the event, interviewing people at the scene of the protest. I am not saying Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! didn’t do a good job, but she didn’t interview people at the scene, however she provided great independent news coverage. On the other hand, maybe we should start calling the mainstream media the lamestream media, because not once was it shown on TV since the “revolution will not be televised.” Every person was educated and they knew what they were talking about. The same thing was shown on the Colbert Report, where Steven Colbert tried to poke fun at the protest. Instead of getting people who were clueless, there was people who were part of the political stratum. As talked about in Mr. Dahl’s “Who Governs?,” those in this group are deeply involved in the political process, just like activists in this movement.

Checking the twitter hashtags #occupywallst, #antibanks, #occupywallstreet, #ows, #ourwallstreet, #sept17, #globalrevolution, #TakeWallSt, #usdor, #takewallstreet, #usdayofrage, and many others, I was able to read first-hand what activists were saying about the movement for that day. As of now, numerous people are being held by the NYPD with many in the protest calling for their release. Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann, huge media stars have professed their support for the movement and were congratulated on the account of the official organizer of protests (especially those in New York) named @OccupyWallSt. Last night, I watched a clip on Real Time with Bill Maher, where Tom Morello, the former head of Rage Against the Machine professed his support for the movement. Lupe Fiasco, a major rap star has offered supplies and his support as he protests in solidarity with the other protesters in New York. As support spreads, it has become a national movement, spreading to areas across the United States and more prevalent, sparking worldwide protests.

I compiled a map, showing where all the protests are occurring as I write this. I tried to be as detailed as possible, using the sources I had available including takethesquare’s site and Wikipedia’s page that both linked to protest feeds across the world, but Take The Square told people to occupy financial sectors wherever you live:

To close, I am learning that it’s getting violent on Wall Street but because of the NYPD attacking protesters, detaining them or other actions. This was confirmed by what I heard on the livestream when one man said: “it was very violent.” According to a recent Associated Press tweet, over 80 people have been arrested by the NYPD. I just hope that they can hold on there until December 31st as the official Facebook event says because then it can benefit the whole global movement. In the end, I encourage you to protest against or write about the corporations and the governments that have become something that is against the people, not for the people and has caused people-driven government to disappear from the “free world.”

Monday, September 5, 2011

My letter to the editor (Time Magazine)

While you wait for me to post another article, I found something you might like to read. My current article about the social movement on Wall Street is under way. Here's my Letter to the editor, which wasn't published in Time Magazine:

Ultranationalist Americans don’t exist

Joel Stein’s piece [“Joel vs. the volcano”, July 4th] was disconcerting. Stein writes about Iceland’s new constitution but also criticizes Americans. First he says that U.S. citizens would write U-S-A in big letters on a new constitution if it was proposed. I think Mr. Stein is not really being completely serious, but I still that that the premise that Americans are ill-informed is incorrect. Some people have good ideas like reforming government for the betterment of the people. On the other hand, many Americans don’t have the appropriate sources of information to become politically-literate citizens. Later in the column, Mr. Stein writes “I was totally right to have never read through our Constitution all the way through. Constitutions are boring.” Mr. Stein seems have a smart-alecy tone throughout the piece and he seems to think he is the only one who knows about the Constitution’s inner workings. That’s just not true. He does not seem to be a fair judge of the document. At the end of the column, he writes “America’s found[ers]…wrote a document…that prevents…direct democracy [that] could lead to people giving themselves ludicrously low taxes and insanely generous benefits.” Mr. Stein seems to not have faith in the American spirit and the American character to lead meaningful change. In conclusion, I believe Mr. Stein is mischaracterizing Americans as ignorant, incompetent and jingoist.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

America needs another economic Andrew Jackson

Most American politicians are not like President Andrew Jackson in all his political views relating to the economy which included abolishing the central bank at the time. In recent times, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has come under attack by people across the political spectrum. You can't find many who criticize the rich across political lines. But the private banking group, the Fed, is always open to verbal attack if not people-power anger by some that even wants to abolish the Fed.[i] Some have even proposed to eliminate the national debt, like President Jackson. From articles I found online and other sources, I have found those that are like Mr. Jackson in U.S. politics. Before that, you have to look back at exactly what Mr. Jackson said about the precursor to the Federal Reserve, the Second Bank of the United States.

Two years after the founding of modern America in 1789, Congress passed a law that approved a charter for the Bank of the United States for 20 years. Thereafter, an economic plan was in place until 1841 with a five year gap (1811-1816) because of a Pennsylvania legislature that reauthorized the Second Bank of the United States’s charter in 1836 (even though it wasn’t a federal charter after it was vetoed two times by Mr. Jackson). The economic plan started with Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton who called for central bank. According to Digital History’s website: "Hamilton's...objective was to create a Bank of the United States…A national bank [that]would collect taxes, hold government funds, and make loans to the government and borrowers. One criticism directed against the bank was…it would encourage speculation and corruption…Thomas Jefferson and James Madison charged that a national bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank. Hamilton…argued that Congress had the power to create a bank because the Constitution granted the federal government authority to do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out its constitutional functions."[ii] Going back to that, Mr. Hamilton mentions the necessary and proper clause: "Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."[iii] I believe that the bank was unconstitutional, not being necessary and proper in any way and could be easily corrupted since it only benefited the rich, for the most part.[iv] For the next 31 years, until President Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter of Bank of the United States, there wasn't enough opposition to stop the bank.

As part of his plan to eliminate the national debt, Andrew Jackson wanted to eliminate something that he believed gave too much power to the wealthy. That something was the Second Bank of the United States. When the bill that reauthorized its charter passed both houses of Congress, Mr. Jackson vetoed it. In a speech about the bill he stated:
"It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof...But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose...Congress [has] parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional...It is not their public agency or the deposits of the Government which the States claim a right to tax, but...private emolument--those powers and privileges for which the [banks] pay a bonus...We may not pass an act prohibiting the States to tax the banking business carried on within their limits...The bank is professedly established as an agent of the executive branch of the Government, and its constitutionality is maintained on that ground...There is nothing in its legitimate functions which makes it necessary or proper. Whatever interest or influence, whether public or private...it can not be found either in the wishes or necessities of the executive department, by which present action is deemed premature, and the powers [given to the bank are] not only unnecessary, but dangerous to the Government and country...It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes...when the laws undertake to add to...grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government...If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy." [v]

From the veto speech of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States (which he refers to as “the Bank”) in 1832, I have made some connections in the modern political landscape of America where many are speaking out against a Federal Reserve. As you have read in the above speech, Mr. Jackson called the centralized bank at the time, a private corporation; politicians today are using the same language against the Fed. Before that, to summarize, Mr. Jackson stated:
1. It is unconstitutional for Congress to transfer its ability to coin money to a private corporation, chartered by the government
2. The Constitution is being ignored by those that support the bank
3. The bank itself is unconstitutional and must be abolished
4. States should be allowed to tax private emoluments such as bonuses or gifts of members of the bank
5. States can tax the banking business
6. The Bank is not necessary or proper in carrying out governmental powers
7. Unnecessary Powers given to the bank are dangerous to the country
8. The wealthy and powerful often selfishly try to get themselves more money
9. Farmers, mechanics and laborers have a right to complain to the government of the injustice of their condition
10. The government must stand against new monopolies and executive privileges (such as executive compensation)
11. The government must stay a government for the people, not for the advancement of a few powerful people
12. Compromise and gradual reform in laws and political economy

So from this list, I found a number of politicians that have similar ideas and to find out which ones were like Mr. Jackson except substituting the Federal Reserve instead of the bank. A thirteenth idea of Mr. Jackson not mentioned in his speech is the elimination of the national debt by pulling all government money out of the centralized bank. As president, he was the only one who ever has eliminated the national debt and no one has even come close to that goal since then. I noted which numbers in the above list applied to each quote by putting them in bolded in parentheses, so one can find which person is the modern Andrew Jackson.

The list is expansive and goes across the traditional political spectrum including
- Al Gore in 2000 election (12 possibly in some way and 13)
"Paying down debt reduces government intrusion...Pay off the national debt by 2013."[vi]
- Willie Felix Carter, 2012 Democratic Presidential Candidate (12 and 13)
"[He wants America] moving forward to reduce our national debt...create a business friendly community, with incentives to encourage hiring, and working to ensure affordable housing...“work[ing] with Congress with the interest of co[r]perate America [in mind] and [insuring] small businesses that we not drive them out of competition in the process [of creating affordable healthcare]...reduce taxes...to give taxpayers more buying power...[and to solve the national debt]."[vii]
- Mike Maloney, 2012 Democratic Presidential Candidate I support (1 except Congress is not mentioned, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 is implied and 12)
"[the] government cannot plan and direct the economy and cannot be seen as the “creator” of jobs...government must constrain businesses to some extent for the General Welfare, government officials [cannot] direct...business...Government intervention to prop up failing businesses [is inefficient and [destroys]...productive segments of the economy...Government Must Protect Free People from the Power of Great Combinations [in business such as monopolies and trusts]...Big Oil...banks [and] media dismantled antitrust laws... [the] Super Rich hide their wealth offshore to escape taxation...[A supporter said from what he's heard, Mr. Maloney would]restore the Eisenhower tax brackets that [America] prospered with...and replace the private Federal Reserve that charges...government interest for imaginary money.”[viii]
- Dee Neveu, another 2012 Presidential candidate (8, 9, 11 and 12)
"[She says she is a] real vote for the people...American jobs need saving...I do believe that a President should be for helping everyone, both rich and poor [by having fair tax laws and through other means]...How can we continue to help everywhere else...when we need to help ourselves again right here in America?” [ix]
- Ron Paul, 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate and current U.S. Representative (3, 12 and sort of 13)
"[A writer talks about Ron Paul, saying he would] lay off Ben Bernanke...and abolish the Federal Reserve...Ron Paul…represents the United States’ last hope of preserving its position as a pre-eminent economic superpower and avoiding a Soviet-style collapse into an abyss of debt, depression and decay.”[x]
- Gary Johnson, 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate (7, 11 and 12)
"The Federal Reserve Bank needs to be reviewed and managed effectively...Congress should take a close look at how the Federal Reserve Bank is operated and regulated. If changes need to be made within the Federal Reserve Bank, they should be made...Government spends too much because it does too much. Unchecked deficits are the single greatest threat to our national security...THE FEDERAL RESERVE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT and its actions held to the same level of scrutiny as any other federal department."[xi]
- Rand Paul, a current U.S. Republican Senator (7, 11 and 12)
"With so much blame going around for the current financial crisis it is surprising that so few in the mainstream press have discussed the role of the Federal Reserve System. For too long the Federal Reserve has operated behind a shroud of mystery—as Senator I would make sure that all Americans understand the dangers of unsound monetary policy and shed light on this secretive organization...As Senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system." [xii]

- Anonymous's video as talked about in RawStory article (1 possibly, 3 is very likely, but not said, 9 and 11)
"Democrats have failed us, Republicans have failed us... It is time for us to stand up for ourselves... We must fight back against the organized criminal class... We must launch "operation Empire State rebellion. The operation will commence on June 14th...Operation Empire State Rebellion Engaged."...The group's latest Youtube video[xiii] has this description: In this new video release, "as a first step," Anonymous has called for public protests beginning on June 14th, continuing "until Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke steps down." To make their case, they have presented a list of recent scandalous Federal Reserve actions [detailed on http://seetell.jp/13611]."[xiv]

- Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont (4 except not of the Federal Reserve, 5 is said often in other speeches, 8, 9, 10 may not be in speech but is in his policy, 11 and 12)
"Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world? The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened. What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans...We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people."[xv]
- Jim DeMint , current Republican U.S. Senator (9 and 12)
"Ben Bernanke is an intelligent and well-intended public servant, but the fact is the Fed has failed the American people during his tenure as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and I cannot support his nomination for a second term. Americans want a new Fed chairman who is willing to provide transparency into the Fed's actions, who is willing to accept responsibility for the Fed's mistakes, and who is willing to support true monetary reform that guarantees the soundness of our money."[xvi]
- Byron Dorgan, a Democratic U.S. Senator (9, 10, 11 and 12)
“The American people are entitled to know where these dollars have gone. The Fed refuses to disclose this…to the American people, so we are taking congressional action to determine how the Fed has used these trillions of dollars.” [xvii]
- Alan Grayson, Democratic U.S. Representative (9, 10, 11 and 12)
"Many of the people who opposed [the audit of the Fed] have bought into one of the big fictions of our era. That fiction is the fiction of Fed 'independence.' The Fed may be independent from our elected political leadership, but the Fed is anything but independent from Wall Street. On the contrary, the Fed is government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. Wall Street mobilized against this amendment to perpetuate its monopoly control of the money supply, and its ability to conduct secret bailouts with Fed blank checks. For once, Wall Street lost, and the people won. This is important because it represents new hope that we can stop the wholesale transfer of wealth from us to them."[xviii]
- Charles Grassley, a Republican U.S. Senator (7 to extent except the Fed’s powers are not deemed completely unnecessary, 9 is implied and 12)

“The Fed has gone beyond what was viewed as its historical authority in the last two and a half years without any transparency or accountability. Our amendment [the financial reform legislation] changes that by making the Fed’s emergency loan authority subject to the light of day.”[xix]
- Chris Dodd, a Democratic U.S. Senator (7 to extent of needed reform and 12)
"'We saw over the last number of years, when they [the Federal Reserve] took on consumer protection responsibilities and the regulation of bank holding companies, it was an abysmal failure."[xx]
- Newt Gingrich, 2012 Republican Presidential candidate (6 except not all powers given to the federal reserve are abolished and 9)
"As a part of a thorough reappraisal of the role of the Federal Reserve System, Congress should immediately narrow the focus of the Fed to the sole goal of stable prices [and] with so much activity going on behind the closed doors of the Federal Reserve in Washington and New York, we must undertake a full-scale and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve."[xxi]

From the above list, I have concluded that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and 2012 Democratic Presidential Candidate Mike Maloney are most like President Andrew Jackson's economic policy. In fact they have a tie between the numbers of ideas that each has that reflect Mr. Jackson's policies. I like Mr. Maloney, but I would favor Mr. Sanders in a Presidential race because he has proven he is a fighter for the middle class as shown by his 8 hr long "Bernie Buster" or a modern version of a filibuster on the Senate Floor on December 10th, 2010 (I am reading through the speech at this time). Unfortunately Mr. Sanders has announced he isn't running in the Presidential race, but Mr. Maloney is running. So, I support Mr. Maloney.

However, there is no politician I have found who endorses Mr. Jackson's views on the economy totally. I will still wait for that politician that does that. I want a politician like Willie Stark in All the Kings Men that understands the people, but is not power-hungry and has some sort of charisma which is balanced by intelligence of the issues facing this country. That politician will come one day and change America in a way that's needed desperately because the United States of America is on the brink of a new Revolution which I believe has already begun.