Third Party & Independents Archives

When the Federal Government Fails the People

The hardest thing for Americans to do right now in this presidential election season is to fight distraction and, instead, focus on the failure of all three branches of the federal government. And also to resist the propaganda masquerading as patriotic obligation that voting will fundamentally fix the federal government. The real lesson of American history is that things have turned so ugly that electing a new president and many new members of Congress will at best provide band-aids when what is needed is nothing less than what Thomas Jefferson wisely said our nation would need periodically: a political revolution.

The basis for this view is that the institutions of the three branches have been so corrupted and perverted that they no longer meet the hopes and aspirations embedded in our Constitution.

It is easy to condemn George W. Bush as the worst president in history. The larger truth is that the presidency has accumulated far too much power over the past half century. This has resulted from the weakening of the Congress that no longer, in any way, has the power of an equal branch of government, not that any recent Congress has shown any commitment or capability to execute its constitutional authorities. Concurrently, we have become accepting of a politicized Supreme Court that has not shown the courage to stop the unconstitutional grabbing of power by the presidency and in 2000 showed its own root failure in choosing to select the new president.

Worst of all, modern history has vividly shown Americans that the federal government has usurped the sovereignty of the “we the people” and of the states, and has even sold out national sovereignty to a set of international organizations and the greed of corporate-crazed globalization.

The current economic and financial sector meltdown is just another symptom of deep seated, cancerous disease of government that has sold out the public because of the moneyed influence of the corporate and wealthy classes of special interests. The serious disease is a long festering unraveling of the constitutional design of our government. Each of the three branches of the federal government is totally unequal to each other and completely incapable of ensuring the constitutional functioning of each other. Checks and balances have become a fiction.

These sad historic realities have been produced because of an all too powerful and corrupt two-party political machine that has prevented true political competition and real choices for voters. This two-party system has thrived because of corruption from money provided for Democrats and Republicans to maintain the status quo that is the ruination of our constitutional Republic.

Yet the hidden genius of the Founders and Framers was to anticipate how the Republic would most likely unravel under the pressures of money and corruption. Unknown to nearly all Americans is a part of the Constitution that all established political forces have worked hard to denigrate over our entire history. They fear using what is provided as a kind of escape clause in the Constitution, something to use when the three branches of the federal government fail their constitutional responsibilities. What is this ultimate solution that those who love and respect our Constitution should be clamoring for?

It is the provision in Article V to create a temporary fourth branch of the government – in the form of a convention of state delegates – that operates outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court, and that has only one single function: to consider proposals for constitutional amendments, just like Congress has done over our history, but that must also be ratified by three-quarters of the states. One of the most perplexing questions in American history that has received too little attention is simple: Why have we never had an Article V convention?

One possible answer might be that what the Constitution requires to launch a convention has never been satisfied. But this is not the case. The one and only requirement is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply to Congress for a convention. With over 600 such state applications from all 50 states that single requirement has long been satisfied. So why no convention?

Because Congress has refused to honor the exact constitutional mandate that it “shall” call a convention when that requirement has been met. Simply put, Congress has long broken the supreme law of the land by not calling a convention, and virtually every political force on the left and right likes it that way. Why? Because they have learned to corrupt the government and fear an independent convention of state delegates that could propose serious constitutional amendments that would truly reform our government and political system to remove the power of special interests and compel all three branches to follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

With great irony, the public has been brainwashed to fear an Article V convention despite many hundreds of state constitutional conventions that have never wrecked state governments, and that in countless cases have provided much needed forms of direct democracy that have empowered citizens and limited powers of state governments.

There is only one national, nonpartisan organization with the single mission of educating the public about the Article V convention option and building demand for Congress to convene a convention. It is the Friends of the Article V Convention group that has done something that neither the government nor any other group has ever done; it has been collecting all the hundreds of state applications for a convention and making them available to the public at www.foavc.org.

With a new president and many new members of Congress, now is the ideal time for Americans that see the need for obeying the Constitution and seek root reforms to rally behind this mission of obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention. The new Congress in 2009 should give the public what the Constitution says we have a right to have and what Congress has a legal obligation to provide. Always remember that the convention cannot by itself change the Constitution, but operating in the public limelight it could revitalize what has become our delusional and fake democracy. The main thing to fear is not a convention, but continuation of the two-party plutocracy status quo. Sadly, no presidential candidate, not even third-party ones, has spoken out in support of Congress obeying the Constitution and giving us the first Article V convention.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention and can be reached through www.foavc.org.]

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at October 15, 2008 3:06 PM
Comments
Comment #266954

Joel said: “The real lesson of American history is that things have turned so ugly that electing a new president and many new members of Congress will at best provide band-aids”

Not voting provides nothing. Reelecting the incumbents provides more of the same. Seems to me, the only intelligent option left to voters is to vote in a new president and new members of congress, again and again until they get the message, that reelection will only come with outstanding performance on behalf of the American people and their Nation.

I am for an Article V convention, but, whether that process yields blessings or monsters, depends enormously on whether voters have assumed and asserted their oversight and power over their elected representatives, or not. THAT IS NOT YET THE CASE!!!

It is important to get the order right. First, the voters must take back their democracy. Then, and only then, can they relatively safely empower the politicians with an Article V Convention. In the absence of voter control over reelection, the politicians will, in all probability, use an Article V convention to further promote the agendas of their wealthy special interest lobbyist friends, instead of the nation and her people.


Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #266970

Three aspects of Obama’s leadership would wreck the economy even further and help turn a crisis into a catastrophe:

- Higher Taxes, Runaway Spending, Bigger Deficits

- Bad Character, Bad Values

- Unpredictability and Hyper-Partisanship

RAISING TAXES MEANS FEWER JOBS, SHARPER RECESSION

Barack Obama claims that under his plan, 95% of Americans will either get a tax cut or pay the same that they do today. It should be easy to feed the public’s natural skepticism about that pledge by reminding them of Obama’s many costly promises —- $50 billion more per year to the UN to fight global poverty, $160 biillion a year for a new health care plan, $150 billion to encourage energy independence, doubling of the Peace Corps, universal preschool funded by the federal government, $4,000 a year to all kids who want to go to college and pledge future service, and new $1,000 per couple welfare checks (called “refundable tax credits”) to more than 40 million American households who currently pay no federal income taxes.

Independent analysis suggests that Obama wants to raise federal spending some $800 billion a year. Everyone understands that he can only do so my increasing the total tax burden or vastly increasing our deficit. He would no doubt do both as president.

Earlier in the campaign, Obama promised to pay for his vastly expensive new programs by ending the Iraq war and bringing the troops home. More recently, however, he’s admitted that he’d need to keep a substantial American presence in Iraq on a long-term basis – as many as 75,000 troops. Of the soldiers he would still remove from that conflict, he’s pledged to send most of them immediately to Afghanistan. It’s hard to see why troops in Afghanistan would save substantial money as opposed to troops in Iraq.

There’s no question that the total tax burden would increase under Obama. Instead of the 18% of the Gross Domestic Product currently consumed by the Federal Government, he could take the share as high as 22% or even 25%.

Most people instinctively understand that if our leaders make the total tax burden significantly heavier, it will hurt them eventually.

They can also see the disastrous logic behind raising spending and taxes in the current situation.

If, at a time of credit crunch, your boss must pay much more in taxes, he have less money on hand to pay you a raise or to hire new workers.

Even before the present crisis, Obama’s ambitious plans for governmental expansion looked frightening to many Americans. In today’s mood of insecurity and uncertainty, those vastly expensive schemes should seem terrifying and irresponsible.

Excerpt from; http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/10/15/two_inescapable_truths

Posted by: Jim M at October 15, 2008 5:58 PM
Comment #266971

David;
You the man.
The mantra should be for this election
Re-elect no one.

Posted by: S. Hollahan at October 15, 2008 5:59 PM
Comment #266975

Jim M.
You got to be kidding.

Posted by: S.Hollahan at October 15, 2008 6:05 PM
Comment #266979

The Democrats can taste it. They believe they are just weeks away from an economic coup d’état that will allow them to restructure America’s economy in ways that would make FDR blush over the relative anemia of his New Deal proposals. Democrats know that the American economy has the potential to be transformed into a likeness of the European economies they yearn to emulate.

Tax as a percentage of GDP

2006
Percent
Sweden 50.1
Denmark 49.0
Belgium 44.8
France 44.5
Norway 43.6
Finland 43.5
Italy 42.7
Austria 41.9
Iceland* 41.4
EU-15 39.8
The Netherlands 39.5
Great Britain 37.4
Hungary 37.1
Czech Republic 36.7
Spain 36.7
New Zeeland 36.5
Luxembourg 36.3
OECD* 36.2
Germany 35.7
Portugal 35.4
Poland* 34.3
Canada 33.4
Turkey 32.5
Ireland 31.7
Australia* 30.9
Switzerland 30.1
Slovak Republic 29.6
USA 28.2
Japan* 27.4
Greece 27.4
Korea 26.8
Mexico 20.6

Source: OECD

What do you see in the chart? Better yet, what do Democrats see? What does a chart that compares the tax burden on the economies of various nations have to do with anything?

Well, with the United States ranking near the bottom of the chart having a tax burden of only 28 percent and Sweden at the top of the list with a tax burden of over 50 percent, a true free-market Republican would read the chart as proof positive that America is still a relatively free society, economically.

On the other hand, American Democrats see something else in the chart, something more profound. They see democratic socialism as the path to social justice—just look at the Europeans and their government services, not to mention their cultural superiority to “the great unwashed” here in the United States. Democrats see a world of opportunity for the expansion of the tax burden, taking solace in the fact that, “If Sweden can do it, so can we.” In essence, a Democrat sees the once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity to move another 20 percent of the United States GDP into the government sector—it’s like manna from heaven for a socialist.

Excerpt from; http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnnieBByrd/2008/10/15/can_mccain-palin_fend_off_the_welfare_state

Posted by: Jim M at October 15, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #266983

Obama, by virtue of his socialist tax schemes, seems determined that more people will ride in the wagon than pull it. Liberals will enjoy the hay ride till it goes over the cliff.

Posted by: Jim M at October 15, 2008 7:06 PM
Comment #266984

Jim M,

It will likely be five to ten years in recovery for the debacle perpetrated by your conservatives in power. Just how much more damage can Obama do? Your side has killed the United States as we know it. ‘O’ will be a breath of fresh air, no matter how you spin it.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 7:11 PM
Comment #266989

Jim M -

As in my reply to your identical post in another thread on Watchblog, would you please tell us what countries (other than the U.S.) you consider to be ‘free societies’?

And while you’re at it, tell me how many times you went to Australia, where you went, and exactly how Australia is less free than America? (I strongly recommend Tasmania to all - it’s the most beautiful place I’ve seen next to Hawaii)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #266991

Glenn asks me; “would you please tell us what countries (other than the U.S.) you consider to be ‘free societies’?

What I quoted from the article was “America is still a relatively free society, economically.” Glenn left off the word “economically”.

In that regard, I consider a government which consumes more than one-third of its GDP as economically enslaving.

What’s with the Australia question? And what in the world does Tasmania’s beauty have to do with economic freedom?

Posted by: Jim M at October 15, 2008 7:38 PM
Comment #266992

Jim what you seem to ignore is that those countries do not have infrastructure collapsing under their cars,schools that are near to being condemned,etc.
And why don’t you try to add health care costs to the USA`s Tax as a percentage of GDP and see what you come up with? 15%+28% = why my, we are near the top. — selective stats do little good I think. —Savage

Posted by: A Savage at October 15, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #266996

Jim M -

Okay, I’ll rephrase. What countries other than America do you consider free societies, economically speaking…

…and then I’ll ask you how your list compares with those countries who are considered modern industrialized democracies by most of the world.

Go ahead - I dare you! Betcha won’t do it….

Savage -

Great point! Funny how most of the modern industrialized democracies who have Universal Health Care spend LESS of their tax dollars per capita and have LONGER national life expectancies than America already does…

…ah, but I forget - America does indeed have the best health care in the world! Never mind that most Americans simply don’t have access to it, and many don’t have access to any at all. Just goes to show, Republicans know that if you don’t have a lot of money, you just don’t count.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 8:18 PM
Comment #267049

joel

good article. i agree with everything except the supreme court remark, but thats really another debate. until these career politicians have some other goal than to feed from the public trough, and maintain thier own power IMO nothing will change. the two party system serves them well. at the state level i see pretty much the same problem. you have basicly the same two party system with this group for the most part looking to move up to the federal level, and feed from an even bigger trough, and aquire even greater power.

IMO these folks have been allowed vote THEMSELVES raises benefits, and other perks that have turned what should be temporary sacrifice for service of your country, to a self serving buffet for fat cats. imagine thier supprise if we were allowed to decide what benefits they deserved. right now minimum wage, and a bus ticket would be too generous.

IMO both parties have sacrificed what is best our country, for what is best for thier own special interests that spend loads of money to keep thier elected meal tickets in power.

Posted by: dbs at October 16, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #267055

While I think the Article V convention proposition is an interesting one, I have to say that I believe our two party system is fundamentally at fault. Because of the enormous amounts of money required to run for public office, any candidate who does not sign on with one of the major parties has very little chance of mounting a successful campaign. And once signed on has a very difficult time getting elected unless they tout the party line. Case in point there are only two independents in Congress and one of them used to be a Democrat and was re-elected to his seat. An alternative way of affecting government would be these forums encouraging all outraged citizens to vote for ANYONE BUT MCCAIN OR OBAMA. There are over 200 registered candidates for President with approximately 10 or so in each state (check out votesmart.org for the list of candidates for your state). If we mount a grass roots campaign here in the waning days of the election cycle to get a majority in every state for ANY CANDIDATE EXCEPT MCCAIN OR OBAMA, while voting OUT any incumbant in either local, state or national office, that would make a very Loud and Clear statement to our governement officials that we are sick and tired of their BS government by the few and for the few. Then we could hold that Article V convention to formulate real change for the Majority of Americans.

Posted by: Deborah at October 16, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #267078

It is too late for even a revolution to succeed. The fate of the USA and the world is already set. Good bye folks. It has been real nice knowing you. We are all doomed. Bush and Cheney will refuse to step down, and we will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan forever.
P.S. start learning to speak arabic

Posted by: Dean Robinson at October 16, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #267086
Joel Hirschhorn wrote: There is only one national, nonpartisan organization with the single mission of educating the public about the Article V convention option and building demand for Congress to convene a convention. It is the Friends of the Article V Convention group that has done something that neither the government nor any other group has ever done; it has been collecting all the hundreds of state applications for a convention and making them available to the public at www.foavc.org.
That’s right. See 633+ Article V applications from all 50 states here.

Congress has attempted to hide these records from the voters; buried deep in obscure pages of huge volumes of thousands of pages of Congressional Records.

And to boot, the Archives are contemplating restricted access to these records.
The National Archives and Records Administration (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Archives_and_Records_Administration) has a reputation (by some people) of creating constant restrictions and barriers requesting access to the records (e.g. no talking, no iPods, etc.), in addition to the constant critical oversight of the Librarians.

Congress does not want voters to see how they have so blatantly violated Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

We are still finding more applications.
Several of the Congressional Recoreds even admit the violation of Article V on several occassions (which are listed near the top of the page).

The Congressional Records are littered with requests by state legislatures for an Article V Convention, over and over and over.
Sometimes, these acknowledgements appear several times in the same day by multiple states.
One of the most requested issues stated in the Article V applications is a BALANCED BUDGET amendmnet (136 Article V applications by 38 different states; only 34 applications by 34 states are required).
Just think … perhaps the U.S. would not now be swimming in massive national debt of over $10.3 Trillion, and growing fast every day with massive bail-outs for banks and corporations?

The United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government charged with preserving and documenting government and historical records. It is also charged with increasing public access to those documents. NARA is officially responsible for maintaining and publishing the legally authentic and authoritative copies of acts of Congress, presidential proclamations and executive orders, and federal regulations. The chief administrator of NARA, the Archivist of the United States, not only maintains the official documentation of the passage of amendments to the U.S. Constitution by state legislatures, but has the authority to declare when the constitutional threshold for passage has been reached, and therefore when an act has become an amendment. However, NARA has also failed to declare that ample states have submitted ample Article V applications that require Congress to call an Article V Convention. Article V makes it very clear:

  • Article V of the U.S. Constitution: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

David R. Remer wrote: Not voting provides nothing. Reelecting the incumbents provides more of the same. Seems to me, the only intelligent option left to voters is to vote in a new president and new members of congress, again and again until they get the message, that reelection will only come with outstanding performance on behalf of the American people and their Nation.
That’s right!

Not voting essentially rewards corrupt politicians with perpetual re-election.

Obviously, repeatedly rewarded corrupt and irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates is NOT working, is it?

After all, who can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable?
Perhaps the voters should start holding Congress responsible as a whole, instead of trying to figure out who (if anyone) is responsible and accountable?

Unless someone can name at least 268 (half of 535) within Congress that are responsible and accountable, what does it mean about Congress as a whole, and the voters that repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election?

Otherwise, regardless of who the next president is, the voters are probably sabotaging their choice for president, by saddling the next president with the same corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent Congress. And if you don’t think Congress and this administration are incompetent, simply ask yourself how could an economic melt-down of the current magnitude have sneaked up on them while many of them were telling us everything was rosy. Not only are many of them incompetent, but corrupt, and actually played a large role in the current economic melt-down, despite numerous warnings from people like David Walker (former head of the GAO).

David R. Remer wrote: I am for an Article V convention, but, whether that process yields blessings or monsters, depends enormously on whether voters have assumed and asserted their oversight and power over their elected representatives, or not. THAT IS NOT YET THE CASE!!!
I agree 100%.

Government won’t become more responsible and accountable until the voters do FIRST!
Congress will continue to violate the constitution and other laws in several ways, until the voters finally do their duty to hold those violators accountable by ousting them from office.
Voters are increasingly angry, but if the think repeatedly pulling the party-lever and rewarding Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates will improve anything, then they are doomed to learn the hard and painful way, over and over.

Voters’ need to reconcile their rhetoric, disdain for Congress, and 9% approval ratings for Congress with their voting habits.
Giving Congress 9% approval ratings and 85%-to-90% re-election rates doesn’t make any sense at all, until you finally understand how deep-rooted some voters bling partisan loyalties are.

David R. Remer wrote: It is important to get the order right. First, the voters must take back their democracy. Then, and only then, can they relatively safely empower the politicians with an Article V Convention. In the absence of voter control over reelection, the politicians will, in all probability, use an Article V convention to further promote the agendas of their wealthy special interest lobbyist friends, instead of the nation and her people.
Not only is that order better, but it is necessary, because Congress will continue to violate the U.S. Constitution and numerous other laws as long as they are repeatedly rewarded for it, with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm)!

Jim M,
So many of the facts in your comments are false or misleading, it would take volumes to address all of them.
The fact is, too many incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are fiscally and morally bankrupt.
It’s a bit laughable after the last 8 years of massive fiscal irresponsibility to be trying to characterize the Democrat politicians as worse, when Republicans had a majority in the Executive Branch and both houses Congress for 6 of the last 8 years, don’t ya think? Or is fueling and walling in the partisan warfare all that matters?

This is why the numbers of independents are growing (now more numerous than either Democrat or Republican voters).
They are getting thoroughly sick and tired of the blind partisan warfare, which constantly distracts from substantive issues and solutions.
The blind partisan loyalists have become mostly extremists on each end of the spectrum, screwing everthing up for everyone with THEIR own narrow agendas.
The blind partisan loyalists try to distract us with only issues that Americans are already deeply divided and will probably remain divided on for a long time, while preventing progress on problems that have good solutions; thus preventing progress on most (if not all) problems facing the nation, and growing dangerously in number and severity.

Especially the tax issue.
Neither McCain or Obama have a decent and fair tax plan, but McCain’s tax plan would be less fair because it would be more regressive than it is today.

The Tax Policy Center Tax did a comparison of Obama’s and McCain’s tax plans:
(1) www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/11/20080811elex-taxes0811.html
(2) www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

The bottom line from the (taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/06/comparison-of-t.html) Tax Policy Center is:

    If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States:
    • (a) The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners.

    • (b) The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001–2006 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.


The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says:
  • (a) Obama’s proposals would indeed increase taxes for small businesses, seniors and families, but mostly only if their income was more than $250,000. Most small businesses, seniors and families would get tax cuts under the Obama plan.

  • (b) McCain’s tax plan offers the biggest breaks to high-income families and businesses, while Obama focuses on those earning less than $250,000.
    Two-thirds of Obama’s tax cuts would go to families with incomes of $65,000 or less, according to the Tax Policy Center. Only 6% of McCain’s tax cuts would benefit those families.
    The Tax Policy Center estimates that both plans would raise the deficit - McCain’s by $4.2 trillion over 10 years and Obama’s by $2.8 trillion over the same period.

True, Obama will raise taxes for some people.
However, it will make the tax system less regressive (with regard to personal income taxes).
Obama’s plans to increase corporate taxes is a mistake, because those taxes simply complicate things and get passed along to consumers as a hidden sales tax, and all sales taxes are regressive.

Still, regardless, neither Obama or McCain will do what is needed; what is fairest.
What should happen is to make the tax system FAIR (neither progressive or regressive, but an equal and proportional percentage; e.g. 17% such as this plan: One-Simple-Idea.com/TaxSystemReform.htm).
And preferrably, income below the poverty level should not be taxed at all (for anyone, regardless of the size of their total income).
Why? Because it merely pushes people into poverty, and/or welfare, creating a lot of unnecessary bureacracy and red-tape.

Also, neither Obama or McCain have convincing plans to stop the major abuses hammering most Americans (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).
Thus, it’s hard to take either one of them very serious.
On a number of other issues and those long-time abuses hammering most Americans, BOTH Obama’s and McCain’s voting records (One-Simple-Idea.com/VotingRecords2.htm#JohnMcCain) and positions stink.
Especially on illegal immigration.
McCain voted for the first shamnesty of 1896, which has more than quadrupled the problem.
BOTH McCain and Obama choose to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion.

Deborah wrote: While I think the Article V convention proposition is an interesting one, I have to say that I believe our two party system is fundamentally at fault.
The real root of the problem is most of US (i.e. voters).

Why?

Because, for various reasons rooted in selfishness (One-Simple-Idea.com/ProblemAndSolution.htm#root), too many voters rail against corrupt incumbent politicians within government, and give Congress dismally low apparoval ratings (as low as 9%), but then those same voters repeatedly reward irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

So, who is culpable?
Who not only allowed government to grow too irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt, but repeatedly rewarded incumbent polticians for all of it, over and over?
The two-party duopoly is not the problem, but only a symptom of a more fundamental root problem.
Just like pencilz dont mispel wordz, and spoons don’t make people fat, political parties still consist of people.
People are the problem; not THEIR parties.
Blind partisan loyalties are a big part of the problem, which is rooted in laziness, selfishness, and self delusion.

If voters want government to be more responsible and accountable, enough of the voters must FIRST become sufficiently responsible and accountable.
That requires sufficient levels of Power, Virtue, Education, Transparency, and Accountability.

  • Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability

  • Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability

  • Virtue = the source of moral and ethical judgment; a sense of right and wrong; a sense of caring. A good conscience and Virtue is not merely knowing what is right or wrong, but caring enough to do what is right, and provides the motivation to seek the balance of Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Power required for any successful society, government, or organization;
  • Education = an understanding of the importance of: Education, Transparency, Accountability, Power, Responsibility, Corruption, and the fundamental human desire to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and that some will resort to dishonest, unethical, or illegal methods to obtain it;
  • Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Power = force required to enforce the laws, discontinue abuse, ensure consequences, punish abusers, and discourage abuse and dishonesty; but unchecked Power without sufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #267147

Foreign Policy

Obama said he would sit down with Iran’s Ahmedinejad without pre-conditions. That would be a big mistake. An American president doesn’t give someone like him legitimacy by lending the prestige of a face to face meeting with no pre-conditions. Obama’s naïveté and inexperience makes him dangerous in dealing with foreign affairs.

McCain says there are certain conditions under which he might sit down with Ahmedinejad. Those conditions being that the Iranians would change their policy toward Israel(they want to wipe them off the face of the earth); another is they would have to quit trying to run us out of Iraq(they send explosive devices into Iraq killing U.S. soldiers), and they would have to stop supporting terrorists organizations.

Our unilateral foreign policy has been our policy since George Washington was our president. The U.S. must always consider itself first in order to protect and preserve our national security. I don’t think you can blame the present administration for the lack of respect we have in the world. Countries like Iran, North Korea, etc/, have no respect for democracies. They especially hate us because we promote freedom and human rights.

Your argument that McCain would rob Iran, North Korea, Russia and Hamas of their self-respect indicates you think we have that kind of influence over them. They hate us. They don’t respect us. If Obama wants to sit down with them and see if we can all move to the middle, that’s scary. How do we move to the middle about human rights, nuclear weapons, terrorism, our freedoms etc.? We cannot, and we don’t need a president who doesn’t understand that.

Iraq and Afghanistan

it is important to understand that because of Iraq we have an advantageous position in that region of the world. If we pull out before it is stable, we will lose it to terrorist or to Iran. Considering the war on terror we are waging, we will probably always have some troops stationed in Iraq, much like we have in Europe etc since WWII. If memory serves, we are providing infrastructure, food, medical facilities, electricity, and clean water for Iraq.

Change

Obama talks the talk of change, but his record says he walks the walk of the typical Democratic philosophy of higher taxes on everyone, bigger government, more regulation, excessive spending, and weak national defense. He has a socialistic view that says the people can’t take care of themselves, so the government has to do it. He told a guy the other day that he wants to redistribute the wealth in this country. That is take from the rich and give to the poor. I am certainly not against giving to charity, and taking care of those who are truly in need, but a government that practices redistribution of wealth is a socialist government.

When John Edwards was asked if he’d be willing to raise taxes to fund a universal health care plan, he said, “Yes, we’ll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a health care plan…that costs anywhere from $90 to $120 billion dollars… is there has to be a revenue source.” The Democrats want to take our money, set up a substandard health care system, and tell us where we can go. Consequently, the level of care will fall dramatically.

Yes, I agree that both parties want things their way, but it is McCain that has reached across the aisle and worked against members of his own party to try and get things done. The Washington Times stated in a recent article that Democrats made up 55% of McCain’s political partners in Congress in the last two Congresses compared to 13% Republicans with Obama since he’s been in Congress. Obama hasn’t reached across the aisle on anything risky, and there’s a reason he has been awarded the title, Most Liberal Senator in the Senate(far-left voting record).

When McCain said “I will veto every bill(with earmarks)…you will know their names” he was trying to make the point that he wants to get rid of the excessive spending Congress is so famous for. I find that admirable. Why is that a bad thing?

Economics

McCain’s and Obama’s economic plans are worlds apart. Number one, McCain won’t raise taxes, Obama will; number two, McCain has had no earmarks, and will fight them, Obama made $750 billion in earmark requests in the almost 4 years he’s been in congress; number three, McCain will cut capital gains tax, Obama will raise it. There is so much more, but you get the idea. Let me remind you that Clinton also said that he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, but then, proceeded to sign the biggest tax increase in history. That really hurt my husband and me, but in contrast, the Bush tax cuts felt really nice.

Obama may say that he got differing viewpoints to come together when he was a community organizer, but the fact is he worked closely with a known domestic terrorist, William Ayers, a financial backer, friend and convicted felon,
Tony Rezko, and with a group called ACORN, which is the largest radical, left-wing organization in the country. ACORN is right now being investigated in more than a dozen states for voter fraud. Obama trained members of ACORN, donated to them, and worked with them on a number of projects.

The McCain ad that said Obama wants sex education in kindergarten was correct. Obama added that it is the right thing to do and it of course would be “age appropriate”. His campaign later said that it had to do with inappropriate touching. (I watched the video on the internet)

About Sarah Palin, she is a very impressive individual. She is also a wonderful Christian, wife, and mother. Evidently, she has been a great mayor and governor. Her approval rating in Alaska is in the 80’s! In this day and time, you have to look at a political figure’s record in order to learn about them. You can’t rely on the media because of its bias.

I disagree that the Republican Party is angry and negative any more so than the Democratic Party. If you think that, you must be listening to the mainstream media. That is exactly how they want you to think. They show Obama in ways that make him look saintly and peacful, but are consistently belligerent to McCain and Palin.

Abortion and Same-sex marriage

While it is true that we have been unsuccessful in overturning Roe vs Wade, does that mean we are to stop fighting for the innocent victims that can’t fight for themselves? Are we to give up trying while millions of babies are murdered every year? If Joe Biden believes that life begins at conception, but doesn’t want to stop the murder, what does that say of him? Would he let convicted murderers go free because he doesn’t want to force his beliefs on them? It was a dark day indeed when the Supreme Court upheld Roe vs Wade, and I believe that God has withheld His blessings from America since that time.

If Obama is elected president, you can count on same-sex marriages getting the same recognition as marriages between one woman and one man. They will also try to pass a Gay Right’s Amendment. That will be one black day for America.

The religious right certainly has its extremists, and they do things I don’t approve of, but the foundation on which they stand is the Bible. The Bible does say that we are to stand for truth and fight against evil. That is the good fight of faith.
In II Timothy 4:7, Paul says “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.”

The United States of America began as a Christian nation founded upon the principles of the Bible. I don’t believe that it is unreasonable of us to expect those principles to continue to be the basis by which we live. The Constitution says the government cannot set up a ‘state church” which is what is meant by separation of church and state(a phrase that is not even in the Constitution). Just because the Constitution also says that you don’t have to take any religious test in order to hold office, doesn’t mean that we can’t hope that Christians will be the ones to hold office. Our political and social situation in this country has reached a point where if we don’t fight for Christian principles, they will be legislated right out from under us.

Neither party is completely right, nor certainly perfect, but as a responsible, discerning Christian, I must look at the record of each party and each candidate and vote for the ones who are closest to the truths from God’s Word. For me, in this political world, at this crucial time, that has to be the Republican Party.

Posted by: Nancy Shave at October 17, 2008 1:20 AM
Comment #267157

Ah…’Nancy Shave’

Who posted an IDENTICAL tirade in another thread on Watchblog…under the name of ‘Gail’.

Now WHY would a fine Christian woman need to mislead others by using two different names, hm?

I replied to your other post. I won’t bother here.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 3:00 AM
Comment #267177
Nancy Shave wrote: For me, in this political world, at this crucial time, that has to be the Republican Party.
Fortunately, most Americans disagree.

This will be another bad year for Republicans, and they really only have themselves to thank for it.

However, Democrat voters are delusional if they think THEIR politicians are much better (if at all), and the last 2 years alone demonstrate that.

As long too many voters love THEIR political party (and their lies) more than their country, things will continue to deteriorate.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #267194

d.a.n.
you are so so right.
If one re-elects it will just be more of the same politics. Both sides.
Politics in the dark.
Lobby money, earmarks and no one to really oversee anything.
By re-electing you continue the old boy network with those in power the longest continuing the politics of “who can we screw today”
At least by electing new people we may stand a chance to have real change.
Voters need to show that all is not well in the land and we need a new President along with a new Congress.
Voters need respect, if not only to elect those to office.
Re-elect no one.

Posted by: S.Hollahan at October 17, 2008 1:25 PM
Comment #267311


Politicians have no respect whatsoever for the voters and why should they. The voters don’t care about good government or their own respect. The only thing they really care about is that their side wins.

Posted by: jlw at October 18, 2008 9:13 AM
Comment #267337
S.Hollahan wrote:At least by electing new people we may stand a chance to have real change.
Exactly.

But you would be amazed at all the nutty reasons some voters will invent to keep re-electing THEIR incumbent politicians.
For example:

  • (1) Some voters say they don’t have better choices.
    • (You’ll hear that excuse a lot from many voters.
      So, why reward the incumbent with re-election ? Doesn’t that simply allow (empower) them to grow more corrupt and powerful ?
      If you don’t like any of the candidates, then vote for a non-incumbent (i.e. challenger). Do not let the incumbent grow stronger and more powerful. Instead, vote for a challenger, because newcomers will have less power and less potential for doing damage. Isn’t it worse to vote for someone you already know is irresponsible, incompetent, and/or corrupt ?)

  • (2) The other party is more corrupt than ours.
    • (Yes, too many voters say that too. In fact, many voters in BOTH say it all the time. Is it working ? However, it is often true that the IN-PARTY is actually more corrupt. Unfortunately, voters keep letting the two main parties merely take turns at gettin’ theirs, votin’ themselves cu$hy perk$, retirement plans and raises (9 raises between 1997 and 2007), and paddin’ their golden parachutes. Despite the numerous debates about which party is more corrupt, does it matter? Incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are so corrupt and irresponsible, does it matter which is the worst? Infinity minus one is still infinity. If both rotten, gangrenous legs need to be amputated, does it matter which leg is worse? And still, after many years of asking this question, no one yet can answer it:
      • Who can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable? Unless someone can name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, what does it mean about Congress as a whole, and the voters that repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election?)

  • (3) Why vote for Independents? Independents can’t think independently?
    • (Yes, someone here (someone with a disdain for anything not Democrat) said that too. When both main-party candidates are irresponsible, why not consider a challenger? After all, what sense does it make to reward irresponsible incumbents by repeatedly re-electing them (which allows them to grow more powerful and arrogant)?)

  • (4) Because that’s the way I’ve always done it?
    • (It is that sort of blind partisan loyalty that is a large part of the problem. Blindly pulling the party-lever is worse than not voting at all. Many people simply vote the way their parents voted. Only when things have already gone terribly wrong will they even consider changing their voting habits).

  • (5) Because you lose experienced politicians.
    • (Experienced at what? Graft? Pork-barrel? Waste? Corporate welfare? Massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing? Ignoring the nation’s ports and borders, ignoring illegal immigration, and then pitting illegal aliens and U.S. citizens agaisnt each other? Selective enforcement and refusal to enforce existing laws? Peddling influence and trolling for big-money-donors? Carrying the water for their big-money donors that abuse vast wealth and power to influence government? Refusing to ever pass any badly-needed reforms that may even remotely reduce the incumbents’ power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies? Voting them$elve$ cu$hy perk$ and rai$e$ ? Starting unnecessary wars based on flawed and/or trumped-up intelligence? Ignoring, using, and abusing the voters? Abuse of eminent domain laws (upheld by the Supreme Court)? Spying on Americans without a warrant? Violating Article V and other portions of the Constitution?)

  • (6) Because it is too simple.
    • (Really? Why? When was more complicated better? Things should never be too complex or too simplistic than necessary. Have you really ever heard a good excuse for repeatedly rewarding corrupt politicians with perpetual re-election?)

  • (7) Because it won’t change anything.
    • (And giving-up and resigning to futility will?)

  • (8) Because the XXXXX candidate or party will lower taxes.
    • (Maybe, but probably for who? The wealthy (again)? The current tax system is regressive (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes)?)

  • (9) Because the XXXXX candidate or party will give us healthcare (or other entitlements).
    • (And how is that workin’ out? How mismanaged is Social Security, with $12.8 Trillion borrowed from it, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching, massive federal debt, hundreds of billions of unfunded Medicare liabilities, and the federal government borrowing and printing the money each year only to be able to barely pay the interest of over $429 Billion per year? How long can that last? How long before all of the bribing voters with their own money and money borrowed and created out of thin air finally crashes the currency, destroys all savings, and collapses this dishonest, ururious, predatory, inflationary pyramid-scheme?)
All very weak and ridiculous excuses.

jlw wrote: Politicians have no respect whatsoever for the voters and why should they.
Exactly. Very true. Mostly, because most voters reward politicians for it.

Unfortunately, it is human nature (One-Simple-Idea.com/TheCheatersDialectic.htm) for some people (cheaters) to use, abuse, and exploit others for their own self-gain, but:

  • (a) especially if allowed,

  • (b) and more especially if repeatedly rewarded for it with perpetual re-election!

jlw wrote: The voters don’t care about good government or their own respect. The only thing they really care about is that their side wins.
True … that is, until their apathy, complacency, ignorance, blind partisan loyalties, self-delusion, laziness, selfishness, and negligent voting habits finally becomes too painful. Pain and misery is the final potential self-correction mechanism. Pain and misery is a wonderfully effective tool to battle ignorance. Pain and misery is the only thing the can potentially finally trump the voters bad voting habits. Pain and misery is often the only thing that finally convinces enough voters to question their bad voting habits.

It is sad that it has to be that way, but too many people are too short-sighted, and procrastinate to their own peril.
It’s sad that things have to get so bad before they can finally get better (if ever).
Even in year 1933, over 3 years into the Great Depression, the voters waited too long to avoid a Great Depression that lasted over a decade, when most unhappy voters finally ousted 206 members of Congress.

The same thing is happening again today, with over 30 years of 10 major abuses that have already resulted in the deterioation of these 17+ economic conditions, which have never been worse ever and/or since the Great Depression.

And it is most likely going to get much worse yet, because:

  • (1) the bail-outs did not eliminate the massive debt; it simply bought a little time, but made the debt bigger;

  • (2) more inflation will make things worse, and more inflation is very likely since the federal government and Federal Reserve are borrowing and creating money out of thin air to merely pay the interest on the debt, while the principal debt and the interest increases every day. It’s out of control, and mathematically doomed as are all pyramid schemes, as evidenced by the fact that no one can answer one simple question:
      Where will the money come from to merely pay the INTEREST on $53 Trillion -to- $66 Trillion of (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#NationWideDebt) nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt of $54-to-$67 Trillion , when that money does not already exist? Especially now, when 80% (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#WealthDistribution) of the U.S. population owns only 17% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression.

  • (3) Our monetary system is a dishonest, usurious, inflationy pyramid scheme that has a mathematical flaw.
    LOAN = PRINCIPAL + INTEREST
    90% of the PRINCIPAL is new money created out of thin air, and 10% in reserves (supposedly) already exists.
    But the bank only creates PRINCIPAL.
    So, where does the INTEREST come from?
    And remember, the INTEREST can sometimes be MANY times more than the original PRINCIPAL.
    For a 30 year loan on a house, the INTEREST can be 2 or 3 (or more) times the original PRINCIPAL (i.e. cost of the home).
    The INTEREST must come from somewhere.
    Where? It comes from MORE loans, growing the nation-wide debt pyramid ever larger.
    For example:
    • $55.0T |—————————————-D (Debt~$54 Trillion)

    • $52.5T |—————————————-D

    • $50.0T |—————————————-D

    • $47.5T |—————————————-D

    • $45.0T |—————————————D-

    • $42.5T |—————————————D-

    • $40.0T |—————————————D-

    • $37.5T |————————————-D

    • $35.0T |————————————D—-

    • $32.5T |———————————-D——

    • $30.0T |———————————D——-

    • $27.5T |——————————-D———

    • $25.0T |——————————D———-

    • $22.5T |—————————-D————

    • $20.0T |—————————D————-

    • $17.5T |————————-D—————

    • $15.0T |————————D—————-

    • $12.5T |———————D——————G (GDP~$13.9 Trillion)

    • $10.0T |—————-D—————G
    • ——-
    • $07.5T |———-D————G
    • —————-
    • $05.0T |-D——-G
    • ——————————
    • $02.5T |-G
    • —————————————
    • $00.0T +(1956)————————- (2008)YEAR

    • D=Debt

    • G=GDP
      • As demonstrated above, the debt pyramid has been growing for many decades. The monetary system is a classic debt-pyramid scheme that is mathematically doomed to collapse. And that $54 Trillion of nation-wide debt above does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching (which if included, would place the nation-wide debt at $67 Trilion; $219,672 per person for all 305 Million Americans). How much bigger do you think the nation-wide debt and federal debt can grow? Especially when we are already borrowing and printing the money to merely pay the INTEREST alone? Yet, some believe more borrowing and money-printing is the solution! ? ! Does that make sense? Some people say: “Doing something is better than doing nothing”. True. There are lots of things we could do, but more debt, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, spending, and more INTEREST on top of all of it is NOT the solution, but a recipe for disaster. Trying to avoid the painful consequences of 30+ years of fiscal and moral bankruptcy is only going to make the painful consequences worse later. In fact, if the federal government and Federal Reserve crash the U.S. Dollar, making it worthless, it will make the problem many times worse, but destroying the savings, entitlements, retirements, and incomes of ALL Americans and all foreigners holding U.S. Dollars.

  • (4) Congress is not doing anything to stop the 10 worst abuses hammering most Americans (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).

  • (5) And too many voters still believe that repeatedly rewarding THEIR incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election is the solution.

  • (6) Too many people think bailing out banks and corporations will save us, but it won’t. More of the same things (debt, borrowing, spending, pork-barrel, bail-outs, welfare for the wealthy, money-printing, etc.) that created the problem will only make the problem bigger. It will only delay things, but the principles of debt, math, and economics have not changed. The debt is still growing ever larger to nightmare proportions, and trying to solve massive debt, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, and spending with more of the same will only make the debt bigger and more dangerous, and more painful later. Some say tax payers will make a profit from all of the toxic debt. Right. And I have some beach-front property for sale in Arizona.

  • (7) Inflation is actually much worse than the 5.37% reported (15.6% by pre-1983 measurement method, and 9.8% by pre-1998 measurement method). Inflation has been positive every consecutive year since year 1956 (i.e. for 58 years: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Inflation).

  • (8) The federal government has been running deficits every year for the last 52 years.

  • (9) Despite massive debt, massive new plans for more spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s lunacy, with $10.3 Trillion National Debt. Many of these huge systems are simply clever mechanisms to extract more wealth from the middle-class (whose incomes have been falling behind for years; actually decreasing when considering more workers per household, more regressive taxation, the huge costs of illegal immigration, inflationary practices, usury, etc., etc., etc.)

  • (10) Government won’t become more responsible until enough voters do first. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount, and it appears that most voters have chosen to get their education in one of the most painful ways possible.

  • (11) All pyramid schemes are doomed to collapse. New money is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve for every new principal loan at a ratio of 9-to-1. But where does the interest come from? The money for the interest can never already exist. Thus, people must borrow more money, and more, and more, and more … until we have what we have today. The U.S. nation-wide debt is $54-to-$67 Trillion (depending on whether you include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security). M3 Money Supply grew from 135 Billion in year 1950 to $10.15 Trillion (75.2 times larger) by year 2005. We did not become 75.2 times wealthier since year 1950. Especially not with the U.S. population doubling since year 1950. No, what is happening is dishonest, usurious, inflationary money-printing and borrowing money from other nations all over the planet. It’s amazing that other nations continue to loas us money, but it is a double edged sword. If they stop loaning us money, it may collapse our economy and they will never be repaid. If the keep loaning us money, we may conitnue growing the debt ever larger until it collapses our economy, and they will never be repaid. So either way, they are screwed.

  • (12) And if the federal government and Federal Reserve continue rampant borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, and spending, it will crash the U.S. Dollar, and turn a bad situation into a MUCH worse, MUCH more painful situation.
  • At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2008 11:50 AM
    Comment #267346

    d.a.n. writes; “Jim M, So many of the facts in your comments are false or misleading, it would take volumes to address all of them.”

    Don’t be bashful d.a.n., your voluminous writings are patently obvious.

    Posted by: Jim M at October 18, 2008 12:52 PM
    Comment #267397

    : )

    OK, but do you really understand both tax plans?

    BOTH of them are screwed up, and neither candidate can be trusted, but McCain’s plan is to make a regressive tax system MORE regressive. You do realize that, right?

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2008 7:40 PM
    Comment #267405

    Matters little to me which fellow gets elected. It’s whistle clear that the duopoly is least concerned with the voter or taxpayer. Too many Richard Fuld’s, Phil Gramm’s and Barney Frank’s around. Only way AVC will ever see the light of day is for the public to vote the majority of the legislator’s from office and stand up new 3rd party’s with a different attitude about politics and with built-in citizens’ oversight of elected officials. Then new candidates, many selected from the 70M+ retiring Boomers, will be able to compete for elective office and be willing (remember the party oversight part) to support real reform agendas put forth by the members of each party. Then, and only then, will AVC pop out the top.

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 18, 2008 8:51 PM
    Comment #267464

    If you can’t beat them, Join them!

    I’m refering to the media that has herded us into the corner we’re in right now. The media has dictated to us who we will vote for by restricting the number of parties represented in debates. This election cycle is a stark example. The national media had no other party except the Republican and the Democratic parties represented in the nationally televised debates.
    By restricting the candidates exposure to a limited chosen few we are beat.

    John D. Herrera at http://ArticleV.org is promoting an Idea that will join/compete with the media by making a documentary about what would happen if an Article V convention were to be called. One step further would be a documentary of what is expected of the states to get an article V conventioned called by Congress.

    It is the State legislatures that must request a convention. It is the State Legislatures that must sue the Congress to force it’s calling a convention. I think these facts are sorely missunderstood by the general public. It is also sorely missunderstood by our State Legislators as well! Voting out State legislators and replacing them with candidates familiar with the second clause of Article V should be fundamental.

    If John D. Herrera’s documentaries explaining the mechanics of an Article V convention to the public are created and distributed to the public in a fashion that competes with the National Media, this “joining” will allow every day people to consider an Article V convention with the same credibility they view other documentaries created by the national news media.

    These documentaries would allow the population to view Article V as a tool to be used against a government they know is out of control and not representative of their needs.

    The function of Article V explained as it was intended by our country’s forefathers, would return “We The People” to our Constitution and to our legislative process.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at October 19, 2008 3:27 PM
    Comment #267590
    Roy Ellis wrote: Matters little to me which fellow gets elected.
    Same here with regard to whether it is Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin.

    All of them are so wrong on so many major issues, it is like trying to decide which of two piles of crap smells worse.

    None of them will address these 10 major abuses that are hammering most Americans.

    Yet, the partisan loyalists will try.
    Partisan loyalty must affect the voters’ sense of smell, because the partisan loyalists swear that THEIR party’s crap smells better.

    Roy Ellis wrote: Only way AVC will ever see the light of day is for the public to vote the majority of the legislator’s from office …
    That’s right, because all of the current incumbent politicians have already joined in a lawsuit (represented by Karen D. Utiger Dept. Of Justice attorney) to continue to violate Article V based on an invalid advisory opinion alone and the Supreme Court’s refusal to see that any citizen of the nation has standing.
    Weary Willer wrote: It is the State legislatures that must request a convention.
    Perhaps, since the Supreme Court refused to give Bill Walker standing in Walker vs. Members Of Congress. Just one state Attorney General would do. Yet, so far, none has the guts to do it. Why? Possibly because:
    • Perhaps because they don’t want anything that may possibly reduce the power of THEIR incumbent politicians in Congress?
    • Perhaps because they don’t want to do anything to hurt the flow of pork-barrel to their state? After all, the incumbent politicians from THEIR state won’t like it one bit, as evidenced by all Congress persons who rejected Article V in Walker vs. Members of Congress.
    • Perhaps because the people in those state offices have plans to run for offices in Congress, and calling for an Article V Convention is not going to make THEIR Congress persons in Congress very happy?
    • Perhaps because they don’t even know what Article V of the U.S. Constitution is about?
    • Perhaps because they don’t want Article V of the Constitution to be upheld? Perhaps because they fear an Article V Convention would make things worse, even though that’s unlikely, since no amendment can be ratified without a vote from 3/4 of the states.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).


  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2008 4:55 PM
    Comment #268657

    Voting Deadlines

    Most of the states require an absentee ballot request to be made by October 24th. You can click on this link and request your absentee ballot.

    www.StateDemocracy.org

    Check your States Deadline Date at http://bostonnewsdesk.blogspot.com/2008/10/apply-for-absentee-ballot.html


    Posted by: shally at October 29, 2008 2:53 AM
    Post a comment