Featured Post for 06/05 – 06/11
Dear President Obama,
I, like many millions of Americans, voted for you in the last general election in the hope that your promise of change would be the change that we had longed for during the previous eight years.
Powerlessly, we watched our nation being run into the ground by a runaway despotic regime. We saw wars begun under false pretenses, which have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars; we saw our natural resources being despoiled by greedy profiteers; we’ve seen our small businesses and small farms being destroyed by bureaucratic intrusions into every aspect of their lives and businesses, apparently for the enrichment of the big megabusiness cartels.
We’ve seen most of the jobs that gave America a healthy middle-class outsourced to nations where people will work twelve hours or more for a dollar or two a day, or for a cup or two of rice to feed their family.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE
59 comments ↓
Powerful stuff, Steve. Thanks for writing this. I’m sure, as usual, it’ll end up in the trash can – right where they put the constitution itself.
The brilliance of the Constitution, I believe, is it’s simplicity – written for any average person to understand the proper role of their government.
Michael, yes written such that an average person can easily understand it, but twisted by immoral unethical politicians who twist and spin it so badly the the Gordian knot is as child’s play.
I think the blind love of the leader is so bad in this country it makes me sick. For years we had half the country worship Bush, now the other half is worshipping obama. And all they do is make excuses as to why their murderer is good.
Spooner. Have I ever spoken of the Two Headed Monster that is the beast living in Washington? It’s called Party Politics. What this means is that the two parties have forgotten that they should be Americans first.
The Party First faithful will make excuses for their Party’s immoral behavior because they believe in Party First. The leaders of either party know that their Financial and Influence is determined by pleasing the Special Interest groups. Those Special Interest factions live off suckering the people.
And they will continue to do so, until we the people take back our country. How can we do that? By getting rid of the Two Headed Monster.
We have the ability to chop off one of those heads right now. We have it within our grasp. Will we do it, or will we let Party first politics stop us?
We can banish the Republican Party to the past simply by refusing to vote for another Republican Candidate ever again.
Quit fussing about the other head, until we get rid of the first one.
As we are getting rid of the Republican Party, we need to be looking to assemble a viable alternative. Do we want to vote for the remaining head? Why on earth would we do that?
Lets form a coalition of Independents, we can call it any thing we want, but if the people of this country ever want to regain control of our Government, we have to get rid of the two existing dominant parties , and we really need to attack just one at a time.
Never again vote for a Republican Candidate. Make sure the Candidate is an Independent, hopefully of a Coalition of Independents. Get this Party registered in every state and run Candidates in every election local thru National.
What say you?
Cliff, your comment reeks of what many might think would be support for the democrat party. I can’t get behind anything you’re saying unless when you say – “Never again vote for a Republican Candidate. ” you change it to “Never again vote for a Republican or a Democrat Candidate.”
Then you present a much better argument. As Steve made so clear to us in this letter here – the entire establishment is involved in trashing the constitution. Focusing on republicans makes the message either partisan or blind – even if that’s not your intention.
Steve Osborn said: “I, like many millions of Americans, voted for you in the last general election in the hope that your promise of change would be the change that we had longed for during the previous eight years.”
You’re mad because you voted for someone who promised abstractions: hope and change. What is hope and what is change but mere abstractions: Blah and blah blah blah, isn’t it? What specific hopes were you hoping Obama would change? Did Obama hope to change the things you referred to in your letter? Obama is a lawyer- a master of meaningless language.
THINK on this:
“Without ability to translate words into verifiable meanings, most people are the inevitable victims of commercial and literary fraud. “ Stuart Chase.
We need a new constitution, and one without a president.
Hi Alisa,
I had to leavc out a lot to condense my letter to two pages. However, I don’t think the hopes I mentioned were too abstract. What were we looking for in the new administration? A leadership that would repudiate the excesses of the Cheney/Bush administration and reverse the course of empire. We expected a new government dedicated to openness and transparency. These were things promised during the runup to the election. We wanted an end to our endless wars in the Middle East. We wanted the banksters to either shape up, or fail on their own inadequacies instead of the protectionism for every cartel as was done in the Cheney/Bush administration.
Much was made of the “hundred day honeymoon” that a new president gets for some strange reason. Democratic excuses filled the media. “Give him a chance, folks!”
Well, he got his hundred days. What have We the People gotten under the new Democratic regime?
The banksters got trillions, We the People get a one time lifetime $250 check, if we are on Social Security.
Gitmo is still open, torture may still be going on, the new government is backing the idea that people can be locked away for life without trial, presumably because they are an embarrassment to the government.
Congress is putting forward even more draconian legislation for the invasion of our privacy, or whatevr is left of it. Non-politically correct opinions are to become “hate crimes” (fine and imprisonment) The “no-fly” lists are expanding, people are still being arrested for peaceful demonstrations for redress of grievances. The Executive Orders signed by Bush are still there, still ready to be implemented.
About the only FOIA requests that are granted are for the relatively innocous things that Bush hid. The important issues, if forced out into the public eye, are merely pieces of paper with line after line of black and an occasional if, and, but, or or readable.
The first thing out of the hat was widening the war in Afghanistan. Iraq is to no longer be occupied with combat troops, they’ve been renamed as “military advisors.” Vietnam vets, does that ring a bell?
The savaging of Gaza by the IDF was warmly supported by Mr. Obama. The United States is still using its veto power to quash any international attempt to bring the Israeli government to account.
Hell, I’m probably running out of space on this comment, too, and I’ve barely scratched the surface. The concentration camps are still waiting, the NorthCom combat brigades are ready to “suppress civil unrest,” I have a copy of the Army Manual on the military use of forced civilian labor. And on, and on, and on.
Is anybody listening up there in the rarified atmosphere of government? Only to see if anything else needs suppressing.
Yes Crystal. In spite of my statements again and again of why I chose the Republican Party to attack, any die hard Republican will point at it as a Democratic ploy.
Makes no difference that incessantly I speak of the Two Headed Monster, the beast with two heads – one Republican Head and one Democrat head, and follow up with why I choose the Republican party to shun into nothingness ( because it is the Party out of power and therefore the weakest ), I would say that 99% of the Bush and Cheney diehard supporters will divert the discussion to “You are trying to help the Democratic Party”.
And all I can say is the rest of my argument “Trying to lop off both heads at once is a path to failure”. It will be hard enough to get just the Republican Party, and that won’t succeed unless there is a viable alternative for the good Republican people to go to. And time is wasting.
But I keep on trying. Crystal if people want to use the argument you have used, then something tells me they would support Republican Candidates no matter who they are or how they perform. I call that Party Loyalty.
Just think The Republican candidates received over 40% of the vote even after the most corrupt , unethical, criminal, Administration in the history of the United States. The question is why?
“However, I don’t think the hopes I mentioned were too abstract. ”
Yes, but my point was that Obama didn’t specifically promise to make the changes referred to in your letter, did he? He didn’t use the words “run into the ground by a runaway despotic regime” “wars begun under false pretenses, which have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars” “natural resources being despoiled by greedy profiteers” ”small businesses and small farms being destroyed by bureaucratic intrusions into every aspect of their lives and businesses, apparently for the enrichment of the big megabusiness cartels”. The words he used to sell himself to you were Hope and Change - that’s all.
Unfortunately, he did address these issues when he was running. When he got the nomination, he started hedging. As the election neared, he was backpedaling with both feet, but the Dems excused it by saying, “Oh, he just has to say these things to not alienate the right wing, yada, yada, yada.”
If you’ve read any of my articles, here or elsewhere, (http://www.populistamerica.com/steve_osborn) you will find that I warned and warned that the only difference we were likely to see was a change to Bush Lite. So it has come to pass. He has thrown the proletariat a few peanuts to keep us pacified, while continuing to serve the same masters that Cheney/Bush served, the same masters that gave him the anointment to be president.
And so, the Empire continues its policies of war, conquests and oppression as it rots from within.
And
Steve I might add, continued service to the Two Headed Beast in Washington.
I’ll say it again – anyone who thinks that Obama is one of the good guys is blind, dumb or complicit.
It’s pretty straightforward.
I love your article it is great very interresting. I just have a question isnt every government curropt i think so maybe im just synicle. Well just woundering do you not think that this rights should not be denied to any one including illegal immigrants. wasnt that obamas whole plan on closing the Guatanama bay that no cruel and unusual ounishment should be used towards anyone. and do this not apply to everyone after all we are all humans besdies the constitution does say “all men are created equal” so arent we all men wouldnt this laws appply to everyone including illegal immigrants and may i remind you the first everyone is an immigrant unless you are indian. What do you think of that. What do you think Obama would do with illegal immigrants will he take “people out of the shadows”. polease reply.
areli
Are you an illegal immigrant? Citizenship status should have nothing to do with how you are treated as a human being, however, if you break the law in any country you will be treated as a lawbreaker and dealt with accordingly. Many illegal immigrants are sent back to their own country. That is not cruel and unusual punishment.
If you do not have permission from the country you are living in to live there, then you are an illegal immigrant. We who are born in our own country may be immigrants but we are not illegal in the eyes of the law.
Alisa. What I got from Areli’s comment was that it was in the context of Gitmo. And I could be wrong but I got the impression that she was saying that the people of Gitmo deserved equal treatment in the eyes of our law.
For the Gitmo people that would mean timely trials and equal justice. The detainees are not illegal immigrants. They didn’t ask to be at Gitmo. And for that matter they are not in the U S.
Those detainees have been subjected to unusual and cruel punishment. I have several times posted the Senate report from 2007 that examined each of the detainees there , and noted that 93% got there by being sold to the U S Army by Tribal elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a bounty offered by the United States Forces. In that report only 1% were caught on the battlefield, and only 3% had any tie to Al-Queida. This data came from the examination of the detainee records of the people at Gitmo at the time of the examination.
If those data are true, then we have imprisoned people for years who were guilty of nothing except being the victims being kidnapped by bounty hunters and sold to our forces as “enemies of America”. No proof was needed at the time of the sale. The Bounty Hunters word was sufficient.
And a high majority have been tortured, some to death, and every admission of guilt obtained by torture is most likely a confession not of conscience, but only to stop the torture.
As an aside there were two camps at Gitmo – one for the adults and one for the children who were also bought from the bounty hunters. They also have been imprisoned for years.
Close Gitmo and let those people go, or if you think they are guilty of something hold an open televised trial where no one can present evidence against them that cannot be shown (heresay ).
I think this is the reason there have been n0 open trials for the detainees and why there is not likely to be – because the immoral treatment they have received will be exposed to the world.
Amen, Cliff, Amen.
Alisa – you made a really important point. Citizen status is not mentioned as a qualifier anywhere in the constitution, but there’s so many crazy right wingers that believe that government somehow grants us our rights, and therefore, the only people that are actually humans are american citizens.
that’s the height of imperial arrogance. absolutely disgusting.
Spoonerite,
There is a semi-qualifier in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. I say “semi-qualifier” because this statement is not explanatory enough to qualify its full meaning. The national constitution does refer to State citizens and each State Constitution, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, qualified (defines) its citizens as “White” as opposed to 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States.”
The 14th Amendment citizen statement does not refer to the law of nature found in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the original national constitution to wit, the following:
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of persident…”
What do the words “natural born” mean and why aren’t the words “natural born” in the first section of the 14th Amendment?
The reason the words “natural born” were rejected in the 14th & 15th Amendments is because it means kind after kind under the law of nature. This law of nature can be referred to in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence 1776 “…to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them…” Or in other words, “natural born” simply meant only white male [State] citizens can be President of the United States.
[note: Is Barack Obama qualified to be President?]
The foregoing is why I believe we need a new Constitution.
There will never be a new Consituton though. There is good reason for it and it is based on the original and verifiable definition of nation:
Nation. A people distinguished from the people, generally by their original language, or government. 2. A nation properly signifies a great number of families derived from the same blood, born in the same country, and living under the same government. Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language 1755
One of the things I have noted is that many people seem to take it for granted that the Constitution gives We the People our rights. In actuality, it forbids the government from interfering with those rights.
What we have seen in recent years is a continual, unconstitutional interference in those rights. That interference grows with every administration that comes into power and consolidates its gains. Excrescences like the Patriot Act and its numerous descendants, the Military Commissions Act and the various Executive Orders sitting in the President’s desk drawer awaiting signature are all blatantly Unconstitutional, but we let them get away with it, in the House, the Senate, the Executive and far too often in the Judiciary.
The Constitution is an excellent document, short, concise. It outlines the jobs of the three branches of government, mandates them to be a check and balance on each other to avoid a dictatorship, and enumerates what the government shall not interfere with in the Bill of Rights.
Jefferson said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
We have watched successive administrations cut those chains one link at a time and We the Sheeple have done nothing but politely carp about it. Now it is almost a fait accompli and we still do nothing.
Every Senator and Congressman takes the following oath upon assuming office, and at the beginning of each session.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
The President takes a similar, but simpler oath;
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Note that each of these oaths is to protect, support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Virtually every two-bit politician in office is an oath breaker and should really be removed from office and forbidden to ever have any employment in the public trust.
What do we see? Greed, graft and corruption growing exponentially while We the People, increasingly marginalized, descend into poverty and serfdom..
By the way, this is an article I wrote several years ago on the above subject. http://www.populistamerica.com/legislators__remember_your_oath_of_office
I see Alisa. And now I see your obfuscation. When you question the meaning of “Natural Born” as you did in #18, your comments then begin to take on the “What is the meaning of “is” type argument.
That you go on later to give your interpretation of “Natural Born” and then wind up questioning whether Barak Obama is qualified to be President, tells me certain things about your thinking.
Your use of the Samuel Johnson dictionary of 1755 ( wasn’t that before the Independence of the United States was declared?) and my American Heritage Dictionary printed in 1994 seem to disagree on the definition of “Nation”.
American Heritage: Nation – “A relatively large group of people organized under a single Government”.
Since you stated that the Constitution doesn’t define what “Natural Born” means, I have to go to the old adage illustrated by a friend of mine who was given twin stallions. He wanted to be sure that he could tell one from the other so he measured them both and found that the black one was one full hand higher than the white one.
The Constitution is OK as is. What needs to be done is live up to it and obey the Rule of Law that it presents.
Cliff,
I presented the facts to you and nothing else. You can do whatever you want with them in your own mind, but it is not going to change the facts.
By what right does anyone have to change definition of words.? As I said quoted above:
“Without the ability to translate words into verifiable meanings, most people are the victims of both commercial and literary fraud.” Stuart Chase The
The constitution is not a living document- it doesn’t change with the times, or as the meaning of words change. If it did change when definiions change, the Constitution would eventually lose all its meaning– its original intent.
The 1994 definition of nation is not what the word meant in 1787. The words “same blood” was eventually take out to accomodate the usurpers who had other ideas about what nation is– those usurpers who wanted to accomodate other varieties of blood. The usurpers of the Constitution did the same thing to thousands of other words–It’s called Verbicide.
Original intent is what we should go by- otherwise what is the point in the Constitution ?
Sorry Alisa. The Constitution is a living document. It can be changed. One method is Amendment. Another is Constitutional Convention. And there are others.
I am a strong believer in the Rule of Law as laid out by our Constitution. We have had a whole string of Administrations that don’t believe in it, and as I recall, that paragon of the Republican Party said it was “just a G.. D… Piece of paper”.
And the GOP faithful cheer him. Where is your prescription for repairing these United States Alisa? I get the impression that you are calling for a Constitutional Convention. Is that correct? If so are you aware that the conditions have been met to call that convention for some time now but our Washington crowd refused to do it? Would you tell me if you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent , or a Populist?
I am a Populist. If you are not a Populist would you go to the home page and read all that is there about the Populist belief?
I will thank you for it, even if you don’t agree.
Sorry Cliff. The Constitution is NOT a living document. Go to youtube.com and do a search for
”Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document – Ed Vieira”
and listen to what Mr. Viera says about that.
I am a Non Voter. I joined The No Vote Party a long time ago.
Join the No Vote Party. You’ll be glad you did.
No Vote and You Tube sources about the Constitution. I guess I don’t know the meaning of “is”, but now I know someone who does.
Alisa. Don’t give up on your convictions. If you go read ( notice I said read, not view ) some of Viera’s stuff you will find this little comment made by him when he was giving a lecture (I forget where) ” Just because someone writes it down doesn’t make it so”. I do believe this was spoken in a speech about “The myth of the living Constitution.”
What I’m saying about this man of degrees,etc. is that his agenda is to portray the Constitution as unchangeable because he says so!
What I have said is that the Constitution is subject to change by the Amendment process, etc. He refuses to call that a change “from the original intent” . I disagree and I’m not a lawyer. But he is and so was Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, and you may remember his famous line “It depends on what the meaning of
of is is”.
I am not easily intimidated by lots of letters following a person’s name.
I will agree that you have the right to choose to believe his point.
I simply don’t agree with him nor did I agree with Bill Clinton.
Cliff,
I am not putting my faith in what Edwin Vieira says. I have done research on this subject. Read your history. History alone will give you the low-down (facts) regarding race mixing and the collapse of civilizations. I doubt the Founders of this country were ignorant on this subject.
United States of America today has gone to pot, being that the land is inhabited to some extent, by practically every racial type under the sun, and being that so much propaganda has prevailed in portraying America as some sort of racial “melting pot.” That is not what our Founding Fathers had envisioned for America. Proof is in the Constitution.
Alisa. I agree with that. And the history I have read ( a favorite subject of mine ) would have me agree to some extent anyway.
As Marcus Aurelius, a former Emperor of Rome once said ” Look back over the past with its changing Empires that rose and fell and you can foresee the future too.”
As to the race mixing. In my family, every race that I know of, from 22 countries, is in my extended family. I am of American Indian, Irish, French, and Anglo-Saxon heritage. I have referred to my family as a mongrel family. I have no racial prejudices. I can’t afford to. I have family members from every continent except Australia and Antarctica.
Alisa, you are an interesting person to converse with.
Is there anyway I could get you to start voting again?
Obama is no different than those before him. He serves the same master’s. Until the people behind Obama, those who really run the show are exposed, then business as usual goes on.
People need to get educated. Restore the Republic, one organization made up of many patriots, is working diligently at saving the country and exposing the truth to the American people.
Alisa, here are a very few quotes by a man who was one of the founders of our nation. He considered the Constitution as a living document, not a dead letter.
“Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted
with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to
their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment.” –Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812.
“Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of
passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who
are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix,
too, for the people the principles of their political creed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802.
“Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” –Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
“It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own powers… without restraint.” –Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance Bill, 1778.
“Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
“Nothing is more likely than that [the] enumeration of powers is
defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us
then go on perfecting it by adding by way of amendment to the
Constitution those powers which time and trial show are still
wanting.” –Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.
“We have always a right to correct ancient errors, and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience.” — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801.
“I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect
or imperfect; and think it a duty to leave their modifications to
those who are to live under them, and are to participate of the
good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the
same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824.
“The precept is wise which directs us to try all things, and hold
fast that which is good.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Drayton, 1788.
“Let us go on perfecting the Constitution by adding, by way of
amendment, those forms which time and trial show are still
wanting.” –Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.
“The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they
wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to
make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and
experience. Instead of this, the European governments have
resisted reformation, until the people, seeing no other resource,
undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it
out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824.
“Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the
fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.
“Can one generation bind another and all others in succession
forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the
living, not for the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to
persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes
in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had
better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval,
1816.
“We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which
fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under
the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
“Happily for us, that when we find our constitutions defective
and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can
assemble with all the coolness of philosophers, and set them to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.” –Thomas
Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1787.
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written
Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.
“The concentrating [all the powers of government, legislative,
executive and judiciary] in the same hands is precisely the
definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that
these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
Tried to clean up the formatting of the above, but the edit program wouldn’t accept it, I guess. However, the thoughts are still there.
Excellent Steve.
Cliff,
Why would I start voting again? Give me one or two good reasons why I should start voting again.
Here’s a quote from the book Social Viability by Richard Lander
Many people believe that being given a choice between two or three candidates grants one freedom. If all of the candidates offered up for election are chosen by and answerable to a cabal of plutocractic tryrants, are people free? If your options are dictated to you by your enemy, are you free? Politicians are effectively in the employ of the super-wealthy that supply the funds that get them elected. A politician must establish early in his career an adherence to the agenda of the political funding clique or he will never gain the media backing required to reach any degree of political success.”
Steve,
The constitution is not a living document. If it was, then we no longer have a Constitution. They trashed it when they redefined all the words in it. So you can stop asking “Why aren’t you following the Constitution?” It’s obvious why: It’s not the same document that it was in 1787.
While it’s important to understand that the people authorized a constitution which could be changed, the use of the phrase “living document” lends support to the principle that all it needs is reinterpretation to give it new meaning.
That is patently false. The only way to change the rules that govern the government – the constitution – is through the amendment process. But, the feds generally don’t like doing that because it would open them up to widespread public scrutiny.
Why would a tyrant ask for permission to take more power? We the people need to put a stop to it at one point or another. Simply voting for one of the two criminal parties won’t do the trick – not even close.
He’s the real question IMO. What does Obama do that actually follows the constitution? I can’t find much.
Why we should vote.
If enough people would vote against evil, Party First, Corruption, immorality, unethical conduct, Kleptocracy, Oligarchy, well you get the picture.
I keep calling for the shunning of the Republican Party into oblivion. It is my belief that if the people of America would bring about the demise of one of the two major parties, it would cause a change in any remaining party.
The worst thing that can happen to a Political Party is that it is not viable to the American people.
Those people of the Republican Party would have to find an alternative. The good people of the party would look for something good.
We could furnish that Party. A Coalition of Independents.
That Alisa is why you should vote. Become a voice against corruption and Tyranny. Vote Independent.
Enough good souls banded together can revamp the World.
Cliff I don’t think the enemy will allow one party to be crushed, because they know they have to have TWO parties to keep the game going. One party is no less important than the other one. If they see that the republican party is fading away, they will simply find someone they like to run for the republican party and give him all the support to bring some balance back to the game.
Here’s some Henry Thoreau for you:
When resisting the poll tax, Thoreau did not consult majority opinion. He acted. If he had allowed the majority to decide whether he should pay by his own standards, he would have shown no regard for doing what is right. Moreover, Thoreau considers voting to be impotent as a means of serious reform. The machinery by which the state reforms itself is extraordinarily slow. Voting follows, it does not precede true change. “When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery it will be because they are indifferent to slavery or because there is little slavery to be abolished by their vote. As for adopting the ways which the state has provided for remedying evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone.” Does a man have a duty to pit his life against the state? No. There is no duty to fight injustice. Civil disobedience is a defense of the individual’s right to disobey the state. Not a demand that he do so. This is a crucial distinction. Although civil disobedience is sometimes entitled on the duty of civil disobedience, this is a misnomer.
He understands that the men are involved in the business of living, and he thinks this is proper. He applies the standard of living one’s own life, even to a dogged reformer like himself. “I came into this world not chiefly to make this a good place to live, but to live in it, be it good or bad. It is not my business to be petitioning the governor or the legislature anymore than it is theirs to be petitioning me. And, if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case, the state has provided no way. Its very constitution is the evil.”
Thoreau defied the state only when it came to him and demanded his money or cooperation. Thereafter, when the state ignored him, he ignored it, and went about the business of living. First and foremost, people should live their lives. Does this mean that men have no duties at all? No. Men have a well-defined duty. Although there is no obligation to fight against evil, there is an obligation to deny it our support.
This is every man’s duty. To correct any injustice he causes, and to withdraw his cooperation from injustice against others. This is the message of civil disobedience.
Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength.
I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to have this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, “Your money or your life,” why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.
Put it this way, Cliff:
They OWN both parties.
Thanks Alisa. No one can stop the people from crushing the Republican Party except the people themselves.
And you’re right, both parties know they need to keep the Two headed Washington Monster alive for either to survive long term.
The Republican Party was the last to have had the power to help the people of America and they refused to do so. They did everything they could do to destroy the freedoms and the financial viability of this country so that their small group could rule supreme. It backfired.
This is our chance , send that evil Party home for good.
Never again vote for a candidate of the Republican Party. It will work if we want it to.
You’re welcome, Cliff.
I wish everybody would stop voting for those fools. Every time the people vote they sanction the illegitmate government and their illegitimate money. It’s disgusting that people have been blinded by this horrendous scam.
Alisa. What I am proposing is a way to get the scoundrels out. To do so requires us to vote. Vote for anyone other than the Two Headed Monster in Washington.
Vote Independent Alisa. Go look at the Populist Home Page and see what moral people advocate.
The people in this video remind me of the MAFIA
From Brasschecktv.com
The US is looking more and more like a banana republic every day.
While neither of the two political parties merits being taken seriously, the Republicans have raised political criminality to a high art form.
Now, having been voted out of office at the state level, they’re now resorting to coups to regain control of the cookie jar.
No kidding.
They just pulled one off in New York state.
Details:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/640.html
The Two Headed monster at work again. Just think Alisa, if the public would get rid of the Republican Party, you think this might happen?
I’m willing to bet it wouldn’t. I will never vote for a Republican Candidate again-ever.
If not one republican ever got voted in office again, which is less of a chance than a third party getting in the senate, we’d be in the exact same place we are today.
The problem is not with the political parties, it’s with power. As long as great power exists in the federal government it will always be liable to abuse. Sooner or later, a green, a libertarian, a populist or an independent will get into office and do just what we see today.
Power, not partisan politics, is the issue.
Mike
I sure hate to disagree with you but I have to on this. Power is useless without something to wield it. Right now the wielding tool is Political Parties.
Political Parties and Power go hand in hand. The power doles out the goodies and the Party pays them their tribute.
That’s why I think we need to get rid of one of the big two – to give a warning to the power that they are on thin ice. I think they will hear it and recognize that some wrong decisions could get them in a position where other despots got when they began to think they were invincible.
That is why I call for the end of the Republican Party, not because all the people of the party are bad, it is the enabling that occurs to keep the crooks in office. Party first Republicans and Democrats vote for their party even when they know that what the Party espouses is wrong.
We’ve seen it for the last 50 years and we will see it for the next 50, ( well I won’t but my grandkids and their children might). I won’t be among the living when the power is drained, but a lot of good people will and they might even think of people like me who presented a scenario that no power can stop, if the people really awake and grab the brass ring.
Cliff, don’t hate to disagree…..but, you’ve actually got it backwards.
When power exists – especially the massive amount of unconstitutional power that exists in D.C. today – the type of people that will naturally gravitate towards it are those who want to use it. The people who want the power to wage war, to pay off corporate lobbyists, to restrict liberties and the like.
It takes nearly a saint to stick to the rule of law in D.C. – that’s why we have 1, maybe 2 or 3 in the federal government that even pay attention to the constitution.
Until people start focusing on the structure of government – and doing something to demand adherence to the constitution (possibly resisting unconstitutional federal laws, not paying taxes, etc), this waging of war on our liberty will continue unabated.
And it doesn’t matter what party is in power.
The best situation this country could get with your solution, Cliff, I’m sad to say, is a very short reprieve.
If we magically voted out both the republicans and democrats (which I see as a fantasy and not even close to happening – because their laws restrict competition), we’d get new parties in power, and they’d be far, far better.
But as long as the power that exists in government today exists in the future, sooner or later those parties too will get corrupted.
It follows the same path of the two parties now. Early on, they were better, and each year they get worse. In 200 hundred years, we see a tyranny.
I’m not interested in short-term or temporary solutions like voting. Voting is a failed strategy, and in fact – it’s worked so poorly that it’s given us what we have today.
Can you give an example of how any election resulted in the reduction of government power? Ever?
p.s. I do like, however, that you’ve changed your tune from “eliminate the republicans” to republicans and democrats. While I still see that as viewing the short term only, it’s far better to be non-partisan about it.
H.L. Mencken sums it up pretty well here:
“Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.”
I agree there is WAY too much POWER.
Excerpts from the book The Abolition of the Presidency (1884):
We say unhesitatingly, that insofar as the Executive authority is concern, the Articles of Confederation were far superior to the Constitution of the United States under which we live today and better calculated to ensure peace, tranquility, liberty and good government.
The government created by the Articles of Confederation consisted of one representative body. In that body were united all persons- executive, legislative and judicial. There was no President or Senate provided for in our early law, and we look in the law for those monocratic forms which were afterwards adopted.
Our conclusion is that the presidency should be abolished and the following amendments to the constitution be adopted:
[snip]”
“The Constitution provides that the President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the U.S. , and of the militia of the several states when called into actual services of the United States. This is truly a kingly power. It is difficult to conceive of a greater one. ”
“The law fosters and protects a disguised monarchy. The question is, whether the common sense of the masses will give timely recognition to these facts. ”
The reason the Articles of Confederation were not completed and adopted is because the United States Constitution was more adequate in exacting a payment from its young debtor the United States. The U.S. Constitution was the vehicle the bankers used increase control over the social compact known as “The United States of America.” The cart (money) came before the horse (the people) and it has been that way ever since: Cart before the horse.
more from Abolition of the Presidency:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It is desired particularly to draw attention to a very ominous omission. There is nothing direct and specific which makes it the duty of the president, that he shall execute the laws of Congress. His conscience is not bound so far as the obligation of an oath may go to do the will of Congress. Nor is the defect remedied by the subsequent section of the Constitution which provides that the president shall take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, for this is an obligation outside of the oath and leaves the matter of executing the law too much to the discretion of the executive.
After the Revolution, Patrick Henry again served as governor of Virginia from 1784 to 1786, but declined to attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787 saying that he “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.” An ardent supporter of state rights, Henry was an outspoken critic of the United States Constitution and led the Virginia opposition to its ratification arguing that it gave the federal government too much power and that the untested office of the presidency could devolve into a monarchy.
Michael.
I haven’t changed my tune at all. Obviously I don’t write clearly enough to convince people that when I say go after the Republican Party, and when I give my reasons, no one seems to address my reasons, all they do is say “The Democrats are just as bad”. Hell will freeze over before that gambit will solve anything.
And as to Power exists, it is because we the people are too busy pointing out that one Party is just as bad as the other. Then the next thing I hear is that getting rid of the Parties is next to impossible.
However, it is the most possible legal solution, short of revolution, and I don’t think revolution is the answer. I keep saying that the problem is the people’s “Party First” mentality. I keep saying that the reason that we have the crooks still in office is because too many people look upon their Party leaders even knowing they are crooks, believing they won’t steal as much of their freedoms and livelihood as the other party’s leaders. Thus the old adage “Yep he’s a crook, be he’s our crook.” A real loser mentality.
Trying to oust both parties simultaneously is an impossible task as I have said many times. That is why I selected the weakest part to go after. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
The American people have got to do better that being the pot calling the kettle black. Ousting a Party will have a tremendous effect on our country – but only if the people want it, their freedom back , that is.
And it is why I repeat time and again that we must build an alternative to the ousted party. Can you imagine the power of a Coalition of Independent Parties running a slate locally and Nationally and that Coalition determined to act in the good will of the American people?
It amazes me that people will not see the strength we could have if we would just organize. I will assure you that if we don’t organize, this country will become a straight Kleptocracy. And then it will be only with rivers of blood that the people could take back their Government.
Cliff, Thanks for your perspective again. I do believe I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in your statements, and I actually agree with them more closely.
You’ve repeatedly talked about getting rid of the republican party, but have not often made that statement while at the same time talked about getting rid of both parties. Many people have commented on that, getting the impression that you’re supporting the democrats, and I think it’s important to make it clear when you’re referring to this method, that you’re not in favor of either murdering party….unless, of course, you are.
Yes Michael.
That is why I mentioned the Democrats more prominently as of late. You may recall that I had in the past wondered why people would think I was a Democrat just because I keep calling for the demise of the Republicans. Does this mean people are too Party conscionous?
I’m not sure how many times, but it is almost as often as I have called for an end of the Republicans, that I have explained in detail why I chose the Republicans to attack. That’s what surprised me at first, but then I began to realize that most of those who were complaining about me calling down the Republicans, were likely to be Republicans.
See, the thing is I have never been a Democrat, I have all my voting life been a Registered Republican. I gave up on the party early in 2002 why I realized that the Bush Administration was out to kill the American Dream if they possibly could.
I have lambasted the Republican Party since Obama was elected because they are beating the drums 24/7 to blame the Obama Administration for everything that went wrong for the past eight years. This is not thinking of America.
I am very disappointed with this new Administration because the promises spoken in the run-up to the election have all been forgotten.
Once more to hopefully clear the air:
I am not a Democrat and never have been one.
I am no longer ( since 2002 ) a Republican having left that party in disgust and actually angry with myself for sticking with the GOP as long as I did.
I am an Independent now and call myself a Populist. I know there are around 135 Independent Parties and I have corresponded with a couple of dozen of them since 2002.
Above all I consider myself an American and that means that no party comes before my country. As I have said before on many occasions, I see Party loyalty as the most problematic issue that affects the morality and the ethical performance of our country.
And for the record again, I call for the demise of the Republican party for the following reasons:
They are the last party to have had a chance to help America but they refused. They helped themselves and their friends instead.
They do not try to help America out of the mess they caused, instead they blame it all on the new Administration.
I want the Obama Administration to succeed in restoring America , if it does we’re better off whether the Party is or not.
Getting rid of one head at a time is the most realistic way to kick out the power holders and there is no way to stop the public from doing that. If the public does it, all the surviving parties will see what is the penalty for bad behavior. Doing nothing is an option of course, but is not winning strategy.
To be honest I joined the Republican party so I could vote for Ron Paul. Until I heard of him and researched him I wasn’t sure if I would even register to vote. As an immigrant, I waited for the day when I turned of age to vote in this country. People tried to tell me because I’m a black female I should vote for the Democrat – whomever they would be. Because I am a woman people told me Hillary was my candidate, and because I am black and didn’t believe one word Obama said and chose to vote otherwise I was looked at as weird…and I laughed at it all. I did my research…I thought long and hard about all the candidates. I tried to even see a second one as my option when it was certain Ron Paul wouldn’t get the time of day. And then, the more I thought about it, the more it occurred to me that none of the candidates caught my heart on fire as Ron Paul did. People tried to tell me “OH my! how can you NOT vote. You still have to vote for someone” WHY?! And then I became extremely disappointed and despondent with the political system in this country – the country I believed really cared about it’s people (and by people I mean the back bone, like me who works hard, pays taxes (which i still think is bogus) followed most of the laws and tried to do right by others. Instead I was being force fed these candidates that could care 2 shits about me, or others like me.
I didn’t think Obama was so great because as someone mentioned above, he was the same party just a different face and a different angle. The people in power knew the sheep of this country were looking for someone the polar opposite of Bush (and no Bush wasn’t great either) and so they gave us Obama. And like expected everyone ate him up! This whole he is our saviour mentality was/is something I couldn’t get on board with. And now, here we are, crying how Obama betrayed us! He isn’t doing as he prescribed! But, what exactly – as Alisa stated – did he promise that was soooo much different than the crap the people of this country has been spoon fed for years? Nothing. He is an excellent speaker, an excellent reader of people. He is eloquent and well put together, and that is why people voted for him. How could you expect a man, to come in and truly change a system (even if he wanted to which he does not) that was designed to work as it is? He can’t. It wasn’t going to happen…and once again the American people are crying and sighing for once again getting duped. I tell you Dem or Rep it really, and this is what gets to me that people don’t get this, doesn’t matter because they don’t have the middle class or poor of this country’s best intererst at heart. And never will. The only way the people in this country will ever get things to be the way they want is to seriously throw a coup against the government…and that – we know – wont happen because this country is not built on freedom. Never was…
Most of this country’s problems stem from the fact that our Founders gave Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value. Congress didn’t have that power prior to the Constutution. The power to coin money is a sovereign power. The Preamble states that We The People created the Constitution for the United State therefore that makes We the People the Sovereign, not the Government– not in some areas but Sovereign over ALL of Government which We the People created. The Founders were no fools- although We the People were.
Bankers are not interested in governments that do not have money powers. Money was the primary reason for creating the Constitution, and it wasn’t We the People’s idea.
a rewrite and a little more hammering on sovereignty:
Here in the United States, (and now all over the world) our monetary problems stem from the fact that our Founders gave Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value. Congress never had that power before in the Articles of Confederation- they acquired it with the new Constitution.
The power to coin money and regulate its value is a sovereign power. The Preamble of the Constitution states that We The People created the Constitution, therefore that makes We the People the Sovereign over the Government–not Sovereign over the Government in some areas that We the People created, but Sovereign over the whole Government.
The Founders were no fools, however, We the People- the dupes.
Bankers are not interested in governments that do not have sovereign money power. Here in the United States, money was the primary reason for the Constitution. We the People did not create a Consititution because we wanted the Government’s power over us. The earth’s resources (i.e., gold and silver) are first God’s, then the people’s, then the Government’s, in that order. We the People did not give this earth’s resources to the Government. The robber class government stole it and have been stealing it from We the People since the beginning of time. We the people have been stuggling for freedom ever since.
[...] just received the letter below, so obviously you have not been reading my letters to you. ————————————— [...]
Leave a Comment