Table Of Contents
Chapter 1 Gang Warfare Democrips vs. Rebloodlicans
Chapter 2 What The Founders Said (And Did)
Chapter 3 "The Natural Order Of Things Today"
Chapter 4 The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Poorer
Chapter 5 What The Gangs Do For The Rich
Chapter 6 Lucrative Lobbying: What The Rich Can Do For The
Chapter 7 Running For Office: Super Pacmen
Chapter 8 What The Politicians Get And Get Away With That You
Chapter 9 The Obama Administration: Change You Can Believe
Chapter 10 The Republican Race To The Bottom
Chapter 11 This Is Your Tea Party On Koch
Chapter 12 Full Cast The Stealing Of Democracy
Chapter 13 Big Media's Collusion With The Gangs
Chapter 14 The Devilish Marriage Of Church And State
Chapter 15 Is The Bill Of Rights In The Shredder?
Chapter 16 Third Parties In America
Chapter 17 Ron Paul: A Man For This Season
Chapter 18 Where Do We Go From Here? A Call For A No-Party System
Excerpt from the Introduction
Let me start out by explaining the title of this book for
those readers who might not be familiar with the Crips and the Bloods. The
Crips were a street gang founded in Southern California in 1969 and were
looking to unite local gang members in South Central Los Angeles to battle
other street gangs. According to Crips founder Stanley Tookie Williams, blue
eventually became the color associated with the cramps after one of their first
members, Buddha (who habitually wore a blue bandana), was shot and killed in
As time went on, the Crips became popular and were able to
incorporate other games into their ranks. With more than 35,000 estimated
members, the groups engaged in a whole slew of illegal activities, ranging from
drug distribution and extortion to the general spread of gang related violence
through the 70' and 80's.
The Bloods formed in reaction to the Crips in 1972. Initially
founded by members of the Pirus street gang, a faction that broke off from the
Crypt, the Bloods set themselves apart by resorting to extreme violence and the
production of crack cocaine in the 1980's. (They got some help with that from
the federal government, which used the proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan
Contras.) The color for Bloods, not too surprisingly, is red.
Okay think about this for a moment. The color schemes, for
example. Think "red states" and "blue states." Aren't the
Republicans considered the "red state" party, and the Democrats
"blue" like the Crips? Besides trying to kill each other off while
building up their own coffers with funds for favors , don't the Republicans and
the Democrats do everything they can to incorporate any "neighborhood
neighboring street gang?"
The current state of political discourse and activity in our
country is one that bears a close resemblance to gangland warfare. So in my
view, it is highly appropriate to equate "DemoCrips" and
"ReBloodlicans" with their street counterparts. The only difference
is that the two parties (gangs) have been at it longer. The two gangs have
their turf, and that's what they protect. They are identically with street
gangs do they are paid by members of the gang all decisions are made within the
gang there's hierarchy within the gang. Gang members became the admired objects
of rap songs, and the party gang members have become media celebrities.
And why do we allow them to use a fun word like party? When
you say party you think of a joyous occasion. My Webster's Dictionary defines
party "as a social gathering or assembly of persons for entertainment
amusement or pleasure," as in partygoer, party time, party girls, party
hearty, party on, and so forth. Everybody loves to party! Well, I guess our
politics have pretty much become entertainment, but you think we might a
governance more seriously than to just identify it with party.
It is my hope that this book put put forward a step toward
winning back our country. For the first time, I've taken a new position. From
my perspective, I can't be an advocate anymore for third party politics. I know
this might stun some people, but I no longer support any third party. I happily
wore that banner with pride for six or seven years. However I've got to face
the reality that the two parties control the system to such an extent that,to
be viable, a third party would have to sell out and become just as bad.
Look at the Tea Party, it's already become corrupt! I'll
spell out the details as we go along. When the major players are Glenn Beck and
his ilk, I don't see that as a good alternative. It just adds another head to
the already two headed monster.
So I am in favor of abolish all political parties within the
system. To what level can we take that? Do we have the ability to remove them
from ballots, to where people simply run by the names and are not identified by
party? Wouldn't it become incumbent upon us, the people, to know who these
people are, rather than simply going out and voting for a specific party line?
The party line isn't what this country was supposed to be
about. If we go back to our founding fathers, when they created these United
States, it wasn't so that we would go to vote for the political agenda of a
particular group. They had in mind that we would vote for individuals and what
each individual stood for. Now, could the individual be endorsed by a political
party? Certainly that could happen, just the same as you could be endorsed by
any other special interest group, the teachers union or whatever. It still
leaves that freedom in place but the domination by these games has got to end!
Hey, if competition is good for our economy, why isn't the same true for our