Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison
He also said
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.
Federalist #10
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
16 January 2010
12 October 2009
More slave to government
I really don't understand this comment since when one lives in a democracy or a republic,
ONE IS THE GOVERNMENT.
Is it paying taxes? The phrase is No taxation without representation, not just No taxation. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional.
Thyey don't call the state Taxachusetts for nothing
Also remember what Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Meaning, you can rebel against that tyrant across the ocean, but not the tyrants who live next door. Or yourself if you vote and participate in the politcal process.
What is the alternative? Do you trust private industry to run the country? I know I certainly don't given how the lack of regulation and civic conscience has led to the current economic crisis.
In fact, if we get to it. Even though there is a democratic process, most of the politics are controlled by special interest groups. Take for example the Cato Institute which has been quite pivotal in changing the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It also has worked for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support or opposition of ballot measures. One of the primary reasons the two groups cited was the high costs associated with disclosure requirements. At the time, these requirements were already weaker than those required for contributions to a candidate’s political campaign.
In their 1996 book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. "Early on," they wrote, "Cato's bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."[1]
Cato's sponsors
In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:
* Altria (the report identifies Altria Corporate Services as the contributor)
* American Petroleum Institute
* Amerisure Companies
* Amgen
* Chicago Mercantile Exchange
* Comcast Corporation
* Consumer Electronic Association
* Ebay Inc
* ExxonMobil
* FedEx Corporation
* Freedom Communications
* General Motors
* Honda North America
* Korea International Trade Association
* Microsoft
* National Association of Software and Service Companies
* Pepco Holdings Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* TimeWarner
* Toyota Motor Corporation
* UST Inc
* Verisign
* Verizon Communications
* Visa USA Inc
* Volkswagen of America
* Wal-Mart Stores
Foundation Support:
* Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Koch Family Foundations
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
My point is that the Cato Institute is not publicly funded. per it's own literature: "In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding." Independence from what--public scrutiny? Cato lists its major corporate, foundation and individual financial supporters. However, it does not list the amount or the purpose of corporate or foundation contributions..
The Cato Institute is hardly unique. You can learn more abot who funds what at Sourcewatch, which is a lovely tool for finding out who is behind what in US politics. If you are suspicious about government, you should find out who is bankrolling whom.
You are going to be a slave to government if you allow yourself to remain ignorant of the political process and not participate in it. Even more of a slave to not verify the sources of your information.
ONE IS THE GOVERNMENT.
Is it paying taxes? The phrase is No taxation without representation, not just No taxation. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional.
Thyey don't call the state Taxachusetts for nothing
Also remember what Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Meaning, you can rebel against that tyrant across the ocean, but not the tyrants who live next door. Or yourself if you vote and participate in the politcal process.
What is the alternative? Do you trust private industry to run the country? I know I certainly don't given how the lack of regulation and civic conscience has led to the current economic crisis.
In fact, if we get to it. Even though there is a democratic process, most of the politics are controlled by special interest groups. Take for example the Cato Institute which has been quite pivotal in changing the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It also has worked for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support or opposition of ballot measures. One of the primary reasons the two groups cited was the high costs associated with disclosure requirements. At the time, these requirements were already weaker than those required for contributions to a candidate’s political campaign.
In their 1996 book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. "Early on," they wrote, "Cato's bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."[1]
Cato's sponsors
In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:
* Altria (the report identifies Altria Corporate Services as the contributor)
* American Petroleum Institute
* Amerisure Companies
* Amgen
* Chicago Mercantile Exchange
* Comcast Corporation
* Consumer Electronic Association
* Ebay Inc
* ExxonMobil
* FedEx Corporation
* Freedom Communications
* General Motors
* Honda North America
* Korea International Trade Association
* Microsoft
* National Association of Software and Service Companies
* Pepco Holdings Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* TimeWarner
* Toyota Motor Corporation
* UST Inc
* Verisign
* Verizon Communications
* Visa USA Inc
* Volkswagen of America
* Wal-Mart Stores
Foundation Support:
* Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Koch Family Foundations
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
My point is that the Cato Institute is not publicly funded. per it's own literature: "In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding." Independence from what--public scrutiny? Cato lists its major corporate, foundation and individual financial supporters. However, it does not list the amount or the purpose of corporate or foundation contributions..
The Cato Institute is hardly unique. You can learn more abot who funds what at Sourcewatch, which is a lovely tool for finding out who is behind what in US politics. If you are suspicious about government, you should find out who is bankrolling whom.
You are going to be a slave to government if you allow yourself to remain ignorant of the political process and not participate in it. Even more of a slave to not verify the sources of your information.
29 July 2009
Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
From Liberty Forum
21 July 2009
One nice point about US "Democracy"
The US is the only country in the world to elect its village idiot.
Or is that idiots?
Or is that idiots?
09 July 2009
Wait a minute!
From: Texas, other states file 2nd Amendment amicus brief
Government oppression in a democracy? Are these people listening to themselves?
As I just pointed out in my previous post, in a democracy, the people are the government!
Anyway, Tyranny to the founding fathers would have meant a large standing army used to waste money by some pointless excursion, say invading Iraq.
So much for the Second Amendment protecting me from Tyranny.
Tyrants don't fear an armed populace, they just bomb the fuck out of them.
The amicus brief reads in part: “The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is not just a ‘fundamental’ liberty interest. In the Anglo-American tradition, it is among the most fundamental of rights because it is essential to securing all our other liberties. The Founders well understood that, without the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, all of the other rights and privileges ordinarily enjoyed by Americans would be vulnerable to governmental acts of oppression.”
Government oppression in a democracy? Are these people listening to themselves?
As I just pointed out in my previous post, in a democracy, the people are the government!
Anyway, Tyranny to the founding fathers would have meant a large standing army used to waste money by some pointless excursion, say invading Iraq.
So much for the Second Amendment protecting me from Tyranny.
Tyrants don't fear an armed populace, they just bomb the fuck out of them.
11 February 2008
Democratic?
Anyone familiar with my blog should notice the theme that the United States is far from being a democracy. The Constitution is written to thwart popular rule. Case in point is the electoral college. Dubious Bush did not win the 2000 election by a popular vote, he won it through the electoral college.
So, why do the politicians kiss the wrong asses?
Because there is money in the current system and it totally obfuscates the fact that there is really no popular representation of the people. And the government is in no way responsible to the people.
Yet, people wish to believe that an presidential election process which lasts four years is responsible to the people. What has me going on this rant is the comment from someone in Virginia on NPR's Morning Edition saying that he plans on voting for Mitt Romney. Now as someone who voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 PA primary and Kucinich in the 2004 primary that this is a great thought, but our friend's protest vote is the rough equivalent of abstaining. In fact, at this point, the candidates are pretty much decided. Hilary Obama/Barack Clinton for the Demicans and McCain for the Republicrats.
But, no matter who wins, it will be business as usual with the sideshow issues of abortion, gun control, and, the new one, Iraq/War on Terror. The whole time, the leaders are causing the united States to fall further and further behind the world.
Matt Miller wrote an article on why we need federal standards in Education in the atlantic and was on Today's "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane". See Also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education.
The problem is that the US is behind in health care, transportation, and education. Miller pointed out that third world countries are already passing us by. He predicts there will be another "Sputnik moment" during the Beijing Olympics when people see how far ahead they are as far as infrastructure.
Of course, the leaders don't want to take any leadership position and they are under no obligation to do so. This is because of the pretense of a democratic process, there is no real input from the people. The process takes so long that qualified candidates pull out.
The real winners are the party leaders and the lampreys who feed off the process. This won't change as long as there is money to be made.
So, why do the politicians kiss the wrong asses?
Because there is money in the current system and it totally obfuscates the fact that there is really no popular representation of the people. And the government is in no way responsible to the people.
Yet, people wish to believe that an presidential election process which lasts four years is responsible to the people. What has me going on this rant is the comment from someone in Virginia on NPR's Morning Edition saying that he plans on voting for Mitt Romney. Now as someone who voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 PA primary and Kucinich in the 2004 primary that this is a great thought, but our friend's protest vote is the rough equivalent of abstaining. In fact, at this point, the candidates are pretty much decided. Hilary Obama/Barack Clinton for the Demicans and McCain for the Republicrats.
But, no matter who wins, it will be business as usual with the sideshow issues of abortion, gun control, and, the new one, Iraq/War on Terror. The whole time, the leaders are causing the united States to fall further and further behind the world.
Matt Miller wrote an article on why we need federal standards in Education in the atlantic and was on Today's "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane". See Also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education.
The problem is that the US is behind in health care, transportation, and education. Miller pointed out that third world countries are already passing us by. He predicts there will be another "Sputnik moment" during the Beijing Olympics when people see how far ahead they are as far as infrastructure.
Of course, the leaders don't want to take any leadership position and they are under no obligation to do so. This is because of the pretense of a democratic process, there is no real input from the people. The process takes so long that qualified candidates pull out.
The real winners are the party leaders and the lampreys who feed off the process. This won't change as long as there is money to be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
