Third Party & Independents Archives

Something to reflect on..

With tomorrow being the Fourth of July, I was drawn to re-read the Declaration of Independence. One part in particular kept drawing me back to read several times…

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

At times I wonder if we are approaching another major change where a new Declaration of Independence will be necessary. With that, realizing this is a much shorter post than I typically write, I offer it up to those of you who visit to give your thoughts.

Posted by Lisa Renee Ward at July 3, 2006 2:27 PM
Comments
Comment #164517

Lisa,

Thank you for the reminder. It is shamefull how few people know the contents of our two most valuable documents. The Declaration of Indepenence and our Constitution.

Unfortunately, the documents and wisdom behind them is dying a slow and painful death. The federal government has become the same tyrannical monarcy it was originally designed to prevent. Controlled by rich, double talking and self serving lawyers that rig the election laws to ensure their own re-election.

We should all be ashamed of how we let it get so out of hand.

Posted by: jwl at July 3, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #164520

Lisa,

Yes, it may be coming a time soon when a new Declaration of Independance will need to be written.

The above only underscores that we must remain ever vigilant when it comes to our government. But you know, Lisa, those that do remain ever vigilant and are prepared are usually labelled as “extremists”, “gun nuts” and “part of a (state) militia”.

Those that are ever vigilant and use the ballot box to effect change are only perpetuating our current form of government. In our form of government, it is a government which does not share power. The power is concentrated in the three branches of government and none is with the people…who they claim to represent.

Sure, you can change the faces in our government, but you can’t change the government.

If you don’t believe me, just try amending the Constitution.

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #164532

The New Declaration of Independence, instead of declaring freedom from Great Britian’s king, should be one of declaring independence from political parties.

Our founding fathers had this debate about political parties around the time John Adams ran for President. The worst fears of those arguing against political parties have been realized. The root of most of the corruption of our government and political system and democracy is political parties which subjugate all other concerns to the acquisition and maintenance of power by any and all means likely to succeed.

And that includes countenancing deception aimed at the public, legal bribery, blackmail, rigging elections, elevating the U.S. dollar as the prime mover and motivator for almost all legislation and policy.

Indeed, a new declaration of independence is warranted and desperately needed, but it will not be achieved without a revolution, either at the ballot box by voting out incumbents who preserve the corrupt system, or in the streets, as our colonialist forebears had to suffer for their freedom.

Look at the policies and programs our government has put into place to fight terrorism. Ask yourself, with these in place, is not the government now in position to utterly destroy any attempt by the American people to overthrow their government and start anew should that become the people’s will? A great calamity is coming with the confluence of record national debt and the retiring of the baby boom generation. Our government is more than acutely aware of this.

Is it a coincidence that our government is establishing laws and policies that permit them to surveil American citizen communications and financial transactions, and even surveillance of our very movements and locations through data mining of those communications and financial records, not to mention refining satellite surveillance technology of our license plates?

Our government is perfectly positioned to put down any revolution by the people in the streets. But they are still vulnerable at the ballot box. Don’t count on that vulnerability remaining intact. Diebold voting machines are being installed around the country as we speak.

Where there is choice, there is freedom. The great lie is that the American people have a choice between the Republican party and the Democratic party. This is a false choice and a great deception, for it implies that one or the other party will better represent the interests of the nation’s people. The truth is, both serve the same master, and that master is power, not the nation, nor her people, nor her future.

David R. Remer, July 3, 2006

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 3, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #164540

Very eloquently written David, you raise a critical point that it seems too many have forgotten which is the very warnings some of the founding fathers including Washington gave when it came to political parties.

Which goes to what jwl posted as well. I think we need to be reminded more often of what our Country was designed to be versus what it has become.

Jim’s point about remaining vigilant is also important. I also agree with him that there is a tendency to label those who are concerned as “extreme”. While any group has those that might deserve that label it is done to all in a purposeful attempt to neutralize all.

I don’t agree with Jim that we have reached the point where change at the ballot boxes is no longer possible. Though if we continue on as we are as far as not making these changes soon it is possible that is not far away.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 3, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #164550

The primary problem is both easy and difficult to fix. Easy because it involves just two relatively simple changes and difficult because it is in our “leaders” interest not to make them.

Each elected official, after they are elected, has one primary objective - to get re-elected. Even the “good ones” - and they are many - tell themselves “I must remain here to serve the people”. The problem is elections cost money and the special interest groups beat a path to their door to supply that money. All they ask in return is “access” - its simple to give and everyone does - thereafter when a donor has a problem you hear them out. It is the rare case where the official is asked to do something overtly wrong or something that smells too much like a favor (although both happen from time to time - more often the latter). Rather these interests provide you with a logical and plausible reasons for supporting their point of view - often drafting legislation for your review that would accomplish their aims.

It works this way for big phamra when it argues that without the huge drug margins there would be less research and the health of our nation would suffer. In that instance the elected official can feel noble that he is allowing the fat margins or legislating against the governments right to negotiate better prices when purchasing billions of dollars in drugs from these companies. Nobody asks themselves the simple question - when things are not given easily don’t most of us work harder for them?

Big oil works a similar scam and so do the plaintiffs bar and the unions when it comes to aesbestoes reform. They all play on the complexity of the issues to provide the official with the “correct understanding” of the issue and the desired path to solution (which is in some cases to do nothing).

For the most part our government is in the veritible grip of special interests and our democracy has become a game of illusions - getting people to vote on the basis of emotional issues like abortion, gay rights and flag burning while their real interests and the future of our country twists in the wind.

The simple two step solution is campaigns that are totally funded by public money and term limits. Give our elected officials an opportunity to actually act in the publics interest without other intereference. Of course the elected officils will have countless rationalizations why this will not work and the special interest will help write their speaches because they will like it even less - after all its their game.

This country floats on sea of “bullshit” - its all around us - pay close attention to commercials on TV and play closer attention to the exact words uttered by our “leaders” - both parties - you will laugh until you cry but please recognize it is part of the game.

Posted by: Terlen at July 3, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #164565

Great post, Lisa.

I have often thought that recently myself. I have been rolling around an idea of a truer democracy through the use of the internet.

David, I agree it is scary the power the government now holds, but I suspect in much the way the CIA revolted on Iraq, insiders will revolt if supression becomes the way of the land. There is, I believe, in many a fierce independance ingrained from our early indoctrinations of the ideas of our founding fathers.

While I am bothered when I see erosion of individualism and aquiessence to power, I have to believe that at some point America will boil over and roll back some of these trends.

Thank you all for these comments on the anniversary of a great idea, you inspire me.

Posted by: gergle at July 3, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #164578

Terlen

“The simple two step solution is campaigns that are totally funded by public money and term limits. Give our elected officials an opportunity to actually act in the publics interest without other intereference.”

I brought up the money thing in one of David’s articles last year.

My suggestion was that all of the monies be put in a collective pool that could be only drawn from equally.
Realistically money isn’t the true problem. The true problem is the amounts of money, which have become obscene.
We’ve all heard the expression “money talks”.
Well, lots of money screams, and a candidate that cannot raise enough of it, despite stellar qualifications, or even the depth of his/her ideas, cannot be elected.

All candidates, regardless of party, should be forced to start on a level playing field, so to speak, in regards to money.

Our government elections shouldn’t continue to be about money, they should be about ideas, and the ability to convey them.

The playing of the system for the gain of a few “special” interests, is something we shouldn’t have to suffer through, and is to the detriment of the country as a whole.

Posted by: Rocky at July 3, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #164587

Lisa,

You know… it’s interesting you should post this because according to some, *COUGH-Jimmy-Carter*, the Revolutionary war was unnecessary and therefore the Declaration of Independence was as well.

In fact, we may live in an unfree country today because we weren’t founded in non-violence, like Canada and India, and Australia.

CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way. ~msnbc.com

Posted by: esimonson at July 3, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #164600

I agree had England treated us differently the Revolutionary war could have been avoided. Perhaps it was our gift to those other nations that England wanted to avoid a repeat.

However the Declaration of Independence could have very well still taken place. England could have decided after the Declaration was made to let America be free.

It’s rather ironic that Canada celebrates it’s independence from England on July 1st.

:-)

Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 3, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #164625

esimonson said that Jimmy Carter said: “the Revolutionary war was unnecessary”.

WRONG! Jimmy Carter said: “in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided.”

There is a very large difference. Carter’s actual words imply that in other ways, the Revolutionary War may not have been avoided, which is true enough. For if it had not begun when it did, it may still have come to pass years later, a result of growing resentment and oppression by the British to keep the Colonialists submissive.

But Carter is right, only a few key concessions by the King George would have permitted far more colonialists to continue to support their British sponsors and its military protections and result in a lack of support for Independence.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 3, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #164639

Lisa
Can you believe it? I agree with ya 1000%.
It’s a sad state of affairs when it comes down to the posibilty of have to over thorugh your own Government. I hope it doesn’t come to that though.


Jim T
I would a lot rather use the ballot box to effect change than a gun. However if it comes down to that I’d have to do so very reluctantly.


David

Indeed, a new declaration of independence is warranted and desperately needed, but it will not be achieved without a revolution, either at the ballot box by voting out incumbents who preserve the corrupt system, or in the streets, as our colonialist forebears had to suffer for their freedom.

Lets hope it’s done through the ballot box. AND SOON!

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 4, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #164651

Indeed, Rob Brown. But hope won’t do it. Action will. Support for organizations that seek reform through the ballot box and convincing friends and neighbors to vote against the incumbents that are bringing the necessity for revolution to the fore, is what will make it happen. Hope is a precondition, but, action by voters and citizens on an almost daily basis is what will be required to insure the revolution occurs at the ballot box instead of in our streets.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 4, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #164675

Eric, was that fur-ball coming up?

Posted by: gergle at July 4, 2006 4:00 AM
Comment #164678

Lisa, thanks for the comments. I am amazed still that criticism of the political party system is still unable to break through to the MSM. Is this the result of MSM consolidation and advertising dollars trumping critical thought and ideas, yet again? I suspect so.

Who is going to critique the Republican/Democratic system when the mainstream public views it as the greatest of all games - not unlike the Roman Colliseum in its prime? I will, but, mine is but a small voice far, far from the MSM. Ralph Nader had a much bigger voice, but, no almost no one wanted to hear it. He was a spoiler they said, hence, he had nothing important to listen to.

We live in a time when the message is virtually meaningless and the Messenger is everything. Thomas Paine would not even be heard in today’s political arena.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 4, 2006 4:30 AM
Comment #164790

David,

esimonson said that Jimmy Carter said: “the Revolutionary war was unnecessary”.

WRONG! Jimmy Carter said: “in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided.”

There is a very large difference. Carter’s actual words imply that in other ways, the Revolutionary War may not have been avoided, which is true enough. For if it had not begun when it did, it may still have come to pass years later, a result of growing resentment and oppression by the British to keep the Colonialists submissive.

But Carter is right, only a few key concessions by the King George would have permitted far more colonialists to continue to support their British sponsors and its military protections and result in a lack of support for Independence.

Hmmm. I think everyone can read the quote for themselves.

You are technically correct, he did also say that the British could have avoided the Revolutionary war. And if that were all he had said I would agree with you fully. But that’s not all that Carter said. It is the context in which he said it that makes it more than what you would prefer he had said or meant.

In fact he did say that the Revolutionary War was unnecessary. “It was an unnecessary war.”

Also in context, he said too that, “we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.”

If you read the entire exchange between the two you will see that what they are also saying is that the Iraqi ‘insurgents’ are freedom fighters, ala Micheal Moore. The real point being that we are like the British oppressing and occupying the Iraqis and they are waging their own Revolutionary war against us. Which would make Zarqawi the Iraqi’s Lafayette, I guess.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about—this is going to cause some trouble with people—but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?

CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.

MATTHEWS: The president has said he had miscalculated in terms of not realizing how the war would proceed from the initial knockout of Saddam’s forces, including the Revolutionary Guard, and then what he faced on the ground in terms of the insurgency.

Do you think as an historian you would have foreseen, had you been president, the nationalistic fight of those people in Iraq once we got in there?

So in the context of what he said Carter is equating the insurgency with George Washington and his army. Especially if you accept your interpretation.

…and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.
Posted by: esimonson at July 4, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #164804

esimonson, I believe you may be missing the contextual meaning. What Carter is arguing is that history demonstrates that during times when people act as if they have no choice, they are later proved wrong on that score. Carter is a man of peace, believing deeply in Christ’s message, that it is the Christian obligation to seek all possible avenues other than war, and avoid war as long as other avenues exist.

The insurgents in Iraq are engaged in a Civil War, now, in which their government continues to enlist the military aid of a foreign country. It is not clear whether our departure would reduce the violence or result in an escalation of the Iraqi Civil War. There is reason to believe it could go either way. A person of peace, recognizing our departure over the horizon is an option that could reduce the violence in Iraq, is obligated to pursue that to see if it will be less violent.

Had the British widened their options, they may have seen that there were other approaches to the colonies that would not have resulted in the British losing the colonies altogehter. But, they had to relinquish their military superiority option as being the only one worth pursuing.

Carter’s point is well taken, as I read it. Because we have military superiority, we tend to exclude all other options, just as the British did. Might does not always win in the long run. Viet Nam and the Korean War proved that. The British were militarily superior, and were it not for incredible luck on the night and morning Washington crossed the Deleware, we may likely still be British subjects today. In other words, all the British might could not prevail over one night’s weather, and stroke of good fortune for Washington’s Army in retreat. The military option, should, as I think Carter is arguing, be the option of last resort.

It is not only the Christian approach, it is the prudent one in terms of cost/benefit proportion to pursue non-military options whenever possible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 4, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #164816

Eric-
Carter’s message is quite simple: the ball was in the British court, quite literally. They could have stowed their egos, and did what was necessary to calm things down, or do what they did instead, which was continually inflame the situation.

Military occupations and colonizations work best when things are calm, and when people obey the dominant power by virtue of the implicit authority. That is, they don’t make trouble when your back is turned.

The thing about holding territory outside the homeland is that one has to win the entire war. All the insurgents and rebels have to do is not lose. They can wait us out if we don’t win decisively, and win just by not giving up.

Our only advantage will be if we can win the fight for implicit authority. We’ve kept on telling you people that we needed more soldiers in Iraq. The point of that is to own every square inch of land, and give the enemies nowhere to run or hide. You secure more and more land and don’t give it up. You don’t gallivanting around putting out small little brushfires, trying to be as mobile as an army whose mobility comes at far cheaper a price, and whose control of the territory is greater, all things being equal. You cut off their sources of supply, and you cut off their support, both material and moral.

Unfortunately, some in this country have let the magic of television fool them into believe that battles are won in the living rooms, by dominating media coverage with good news. Maintain a good image for a war is of course desirable, but not feasible if you don’t first make that image reality.

Unfortunately, instead of doing so, they have labelled the people who would have us do better, the dissenters whose aim has been to win the war as defeatists and traitors. This has only served to divide, and in some cases demoralize Americans, who see the war as having been turned into a political game at the disregard of America’s interests and the good fortunes of our soldiers.

America doesn’t have time for you folks to finish your plans for permanent majority. Get doing the people’s business now, or plan to pack in November.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #164834


There were several opportunities to avoid the Revolutionary War. Had we and the British done so, would we now have a government that was based on the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution?

I to have been studing the revolution. What has grabbed my attention the most is the notion that there was two revolutions rather than one. Just as the October Revolution in Russia was stolen by the Bolsheviks, so to was our revolution stolen from the common man by the elitists that are known as our founding fathers. I believe that our documents would be much different had there not been thirteen colonies that had to make compromises to achieve a concensus. Some of these colonies were very conservative while others were more liberal. some did not want the Bill of Rights but thankfully others refused to act without it. Those same ones are responsible for the ability to change the Constition which has led to more participation by the common man, an end to slavery (even though a Civil War was the instrument of change) and sufferage for women and minorities. But make no mistake about it, those who stole our revolution are still in command and the wealth that they have concentrated unto themselves is used quite effectively to maintain their control.

Jim T mentioned the gun owners and how they would rally to the cause if and when it became necessary to create a new government. I have heard others say that they were willing and able to reinforce the police if and when it became necessary.

The rich and powerful who control our government have worked hard to divide us and changing the government means different things to our people. Just as many if not more would rally to the cause of intolerance based on bigotery and religious intolerance as would rally to the cause of sufferage for the common man and religious tolerance.

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #164846

jlw-
The Russian Revolution was more stolen than ours were. What the leaders of our revolution did was take an idealistic vision that wasn’t working and retool it. There was an element of secrecy to it, but when all was said and done, it was put to a vote.

That is America. Maybe we might be in the dark about all the things that go on in Washington, but in the end we have the last say. They cannot oppose us forever, and they can only defeat us with our help.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #164858


Stephen: I agree that the comparison between our revolution and the Russian revolution is extremely slim at best. However, I do believe that those who have control of our government and our country are winning and they are doing it with the help of many of us.

Posted by: jlw at July 5, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #165047

JLW, Are you saying that Britian today is a place without human rights? Would the US be that bad if we had a british form of government?

I disagree that the elites stole the American Revolution, they fomented it.

Posted by: gergle at July 5, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #165059

Those “elites” had nothing to gain from the Revolution and everything to lose. You should check out the fates of everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence. Most of them lost their fortunes, some lost children, and some lost their own lives. Take the case of Cesar Rodney, for example. He had facial cancer that could have been surgically cured in Britain’s superior medical facilities, but he chose to become a traitor to the Crown when he signed the Declaration. Looks like those “elites” were either the biggest fools in history or they just might have had some principles worth sacrificing for. Just a thought.

Posted by: Duano at July 5, 2006 7:54 PM
Post a comment