Third Party & Independents Archives

What Nadya Sulemen (a.k.a. Octomom) Can Teach All of Us

At first, The People were absolutely dewy-eyed about Nadya Suleman (a.k.a. Octomom) and her achievement. Here was a reproductive feat of literally canine proportions, done in vitro instead of doggy style, with a potential to paint a fresh new face on Mother’s Day. But then things got ugly. The People learned that Nadya was and is chronically on the public dole, so that her outsized contribution to America’s gene pool was totally on their tab. Dewy eyes turned to death threats. And therein lies a lesson for our times.

Intrusions upon individual dignity are endemic of government entitlements, and they can be instigated and justified by ad hoc public fury over the latest public outrage. Consider socialized healthcare and obesity.

It bemuses me that many of the most vituperative, in-your-face proponents of socialized healthcare I’ve encountered are morbidly obese, nascent diabetics who smoke & drink. Suggest to them--just for the sake of argument--that you don’t feel like supporting their lifestyle or its imminent consequences, and they’ll impart in no uncertain terms that how they live their lives is none of your damn business. Just shut up and pay up.

Well, maybe for now, Fat Boy. However, 15 percent of Americans fit the clinical definition of obesity in 1980. That figure more than doubled to 34 percent by 2004, which is 72 million plus-sized adults, many who will be seated next to you in Coach.

Given that geometric slope, the numbers clogging the healthcare system with the consequences of their excess avoirdupois could be almost 144 million by the year 2032. The rest of America, who will be disproportionately paying for it and unable to get appointments for their nonfat illnesses, are going to be really pissed. And they will demand that government “Do something.”

This will legitimize all manner and form of intervention into people’s lives for their own good. Regulations about calorie intake, restaurant portions, menu disclosure, food ingredients, etc. will grow and fester. Keeping track of your compliance will only be a matter of voiding your reasonable right to privacy. Register your fat ass. Report to your local Healthcare Center and weigh in. It’s already happening in Japan.

Whole new areas of human conduct can be criminalized. Pizza will be a misdemeanor. Big Macs a third-degree felony. And let’s not even get started on alcohol and tobacco, trace evidence for which, perhaps, will void your National Health Insurance Card altogether.

After all, if The People are paying for your healthcare, The People have a legitimate interest in making sure you confine your intake to 2000 daily calories, exercise moderately, avoid red meat, and eschew tobacco and alcohol. Not doing so can be bad for your health. The People will make sure of it. Just ask Nadya.

Posted by Stephen G. Barone at February 22, 2009 12:00 PM
Comments
Comment #275909

Sorta goes to my point about there being to much democracy. Been busy cutting wood David, but hope to reply to your post regarding same a little later. When I’m to lazy or tired to post I try to find something relative on the webb to supplement. This one seems fitting:

Not Yours to Give
Col. Davy Crockett
1884

From The Life of Colonel David Crockett
Member of the U.S. Congress 1827-31 & 1832-35

Compiled from The Life of Colonel David Crockett
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker —- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.”

APPROPRIATE: To set apart for, or assign for a particular use, in exclusion of all other uses; as, a spot of ground is appropriated for a garden. [Webster?s 1828]

MONEY: 1) Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce. 2) Bank notes or bills of credit issued by authority, and exchangeable for coin or redeemable, are also called money; as such notes in modern times represent coin, and are used as a substitute for it.If a man pays in hand for goods in bank notes which are current, he is said to pay in ready money. [Webster?s 1828]

CHARITY: Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions (Alms - Any thing given gratuitously to relive the poor, as money, food, or clothing, otherwise called charity), or gratuitous services to relieve them in distress. [Webster?s 1828]

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

AUTHORITY: Legal power or a right to command or act; as the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children.? Power; rule; sway. [Webster?s 1828]

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.

Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

I began, ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-’

‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.

I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.’

‘No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

‘I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.’

He haughtingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

‘If I don’t, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.’

No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

‘Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

‘My name is Bunce.’

‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

‘Yes.’

‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the world - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:

Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:

‘Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.’

He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.”

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.”

Too much Democracy. A subjective topic no doubt. But, it’s should not be the governments perrogative to collect money and distribute as they see fit. The common welfare should be done through churches and charities, not through our Republic. In many ways we have lost our way.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 22, 2009 1:02 PM
Comment #275917

Roy, I thank you most deeply for sharing that wonderful and inspiring story. We have gone far afield from that wonderful understanding of our constitution and its provisions and limitations. That document still lives, though tarnished with self indulgent interpretation, and perhaps someday we will return to its original intention.

Posted by: Jim M at February 22, 2009 4:06 PM
Comment #275920

On food, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup, the dreaded mountain dew, and other garbage that people ingest should be illegal for starts. Pizza and Big Macs are fine if you don’t eat them for a steady diet.

On Octomom, she was clearly deranged to want to be implanted with 6 fertilized embryos. The doctor that did it should lose his medical license.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2009 5:17 PM
Comment #275921

Roy

thats an exellent story, and it says volumes about what this country has become.

Posted by: dbs at February 22, 2009 5:46 PM
Comment #275931

Why does it seem like so many folks on the right are on a mission to be obnoxious, to act like the liberals are out to destroy all peace and happiness in the world? Good heavens, we’re likely right there with most of you eating the same hamburger and french fries.

Nadya needs help. Whether she should get this on our dime is debateable, but beyond that, she simply doesn’t know self-restraint. I wouldn’t object to tightening up the rules to prevent repeats of things like this, though I hardly think Octuplets are a typical case enough for such rule changes to produce that big of an effect.

But about Japan? If they were being honest, they would go with more balanced standards. Waistlines are hardly a good measure of a person’s portliness. Honesty, though, might not be the Japanese Government’s goal here. They seem like they might be trying to kick people off the rolls. More or less, their position might be closer to yours than you think.

To tell you the truth, I think as far as healthcare goes, there’s you and then there’s your doctor, and the doctor’s opinion should be the guiding one. We didn’t put these guys through medical school so they could be called mister.

We need some kind of good, universal healthcare system. How it works, I don’t care, providing it works well, doesn’t cause more problems than its worth. Preventative care and regular checkups would be a good start. Computerizing records and healthcare would be good as well. But we need something because the worse this problem gets, the worse the problems it could cause are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2009 7:52 PM
Comment #275938

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 February 22, 2009 9:07 PM
Comment #275960

Human beings should not have litters,period.

Taxation of tobbaco to help offset related cost is common to most states and many countries. Nobody seems all that upset about it.

Posted by: bills at February 23, 2009 7:35 AM
Comment #275975

Any background checks or would that infringe on rights or freedoms? Yes SD She needs help. The Doctor Should be Ashamed.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #275980

””“Taxation of tobbaco to help offset related cost is common to most states and many countries. Nobody seems all that upset about it.”” There $8 a pack here in upstate NY, No sweat off my nose. but the folks who smoke are finding other sources if you know what i mean. There losing tax revenue. The Gov. is trying (or is) to tax the natives I don’t know if he has The Power or right?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 23, 2009 12:30 PM
Comment #275983

Rodney

thats the problem with excessive taxation, or sin taxes if you like. eventually you create the enviornment where people will do what ever is needed to save a few dollars. the other draw back i could see is it creates incentive for those who need a good reason. in the end the gov’t actually ends up losing revenue rather than increasing it.

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2009 12:41 PM
Comment #275988

Rodney

that sentence should have read ( it creates incentive for those who need a good reason to quit, to do so )

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2009 12:56 PM
Comment #275999

Yes I know dbs.Why is our Natural gas bill’s so high here in upstate NY. A unit of Ng is about $4 now, Last year it was almost $14, The free market Doesn’t apply their it Seems.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 23, 2009 2:44 PM
Comment #276006

Roy,
Excellent story. Are you familiar with the story of Rosa Parks

Parks, age 42, refused to obey bus driver James Blake’s order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. She organized and collaborated with civil rights leaders, including boycott leader Martin Luther King, Jr., helping to launch him to national prominence in the civil rights movement.
Parks was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award given by the U.S. legislative branch
Here we have a sitting congressman ridiculed for the same behavior, denied access to media, shut out of political discussion, and recognized by the media only to call him names.

How times have changed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2009 3:41 PM
Comment #276042

Weary Willie, I’ve stretched my grey matter to near infinity and I still can’t wrap it around the relation between Davy Crockett and Rosa Parks. Were they both indian fighters?? little lol.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 23, 2009 9:10 PM
Comment #276053

I can hardly wait for your answer to that one, Roy… ;)

Posted by: jane doe at February 24, 2009 1:00 AM
Comment #276091

The relation was between Davy Crockett and Ron Paul. Please read the link.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 24, 2009 12:24 PM
Comment #276106

Weary Willie

thanks for the link. how refreshing to hear a modern day politician take a position not because it’s popular, but because it upholds the principles of the constitution.

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2009 2:12 PM
Comment #276122

I would like to see somebody actually do a historical study and see just how Congress actually operated, and the founding fathers actually spoke and believe.

I think all too many people take a rather stereotyped view of the way people in earlier times thought, and take literal interpretations of the texts and the documents of the time when the people of that time would have a far less strict constructionist view of their own ideas and texts than the folks trying to exploit the aura of tradition and old tyme wisdom.

In my studies on semantics and meaning in text its become obvious to me that literalism does not necessitate agreement between the parties relying on the letter of the words. I’ve also come to believe that an understanding of the concepts and ideas behind a communication are more crucial to reconciling the message intended and the message sent and recieved than an obsession over “plain meaning”, especially when what might be plain to a person of one time might be obscured to a person of another.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 24, 2009 3:05 PM
Comment #276125

http://www.americanconstitutionalparadigm.com/

Above link helps educate ones self on the Constitution and days of olde. They will soon be hosting on-line classes in which I hope to participate.
There you can access the first Webster’s dictionary and get a feel for the meaning of words around 1828.
Also, got the Davy Crockett article there.
Yes, the modern day thinker’s have done a terrible rewrite on our history. You wouldn’t recognize the players in some school books these days. For example, Andrew Jackson has been turned into an indian hater. It’s clear to me that, in view of the Southern refusal to consent to live with the indians and that gold was discovered in Dalonega Ga, Andy had few alternatives to deal with the indians. I think he realized the only way the indians could survive as a people or nation was to relocated out West. Had they remained they would be about as representative as those tribes that remained in the northeast. Andy adopted an indian child and raised him to a teenager where he died, from an illness I think. Anyway, he threw the money changers out of the temple and whooped the British and Spainards, sending them out of the US for good. To me is one of the true great men in our nattions history. Unfortunately, because of the modern day thinkers I fear I can’t call our Party the Jacksonian Populist Party, which to me is the best possible name. So, I am hung between “Republic Sentry” or “Populist Republic”


Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2009 4:03 PM
Comment #276130

Our nation has from its very beginning, faced enormous challenges posed by the dynamic tension between individual rights and liberties and the viability and sustainability of the united States.

Each generation must wrestle with such issues that arise in their time just as the Unionists and Confederacy did, though they wrestled the issue slavery by an attempt by some to secede from the Union.

Obesity and health care is this generation’s issue to wrestle with as the true threat to the American economy in the long term is unfunded mandated Medicare costs looming in our not too distant future, as early as 2016 some estimate as when the Medicare Hospital Trust ceases to be solvent.

Our nation wrestled with and resolved slavery, the Great Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and WW’s I and II, Civil Rights, and abortion rights. In all liklihood, if history is the guide for such speculation, we will come to a resolution on the challenge of health care that permits the United States of America to continue as a viable power in the world and sovereign nation exercising the machinery of its government designed to be slow to large changes and inefficient in proffering costly solutions.

It is a messy way to run a nation, but, no other people on earth have found a better way for a nation of our size. If they had, I am sure most of us would have moved there by now.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 4:47 PM
Comment #276134

Roy said: “It’s clear to me that, in view of the Southern refusal to consent to live with the indians and that gold was discovered in Dalonega Ga, Andy had few alternatives to deal with the indians. I think he realized the only way the indians could survive as a people or nation was to relocated out West.”

My Buddha, what a rationalization of an entirely Unconstitutional exercise of power and inhuman treatment of a people for the profit and greed of others. If Lincoln could stand for the unity of the nation in opposition to the enslavement of African Americans, how paltry and inexcusable does that make Jackson’s violations of treaty exercise of expedience in removing people from their legal homeland under the very laws and Constitution Jackson swore to uphold and defend?

Jackson was a template for George W. Bush in some very similar ways.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 4:53 PM
Comment #276139

Stephen Daugherty, Read your Adam Smith to acquire an appreciation for the language and concepts in currency of the founding days of our nation.

His Theory of Moral Sentiments is an immersion into the language and dialogue and even topics of debate as our nation’s founders wrangled over the founding documents on the individual and human side. Smith’s work, Wealth of Nation’s is immersion in the language and concepts in debate amongst the founders regarding some of the economic philosophy underscoring some of the more structural components of our founding agreements on government design.

These works however, are for the very literate, as the language would appear quite foreign to any others and make as little sense.

I contest the notion presented elsewhere in the comments above that the language of the founders has been corrupted. The language has evolved to accommodate the changing aspects of our society and each generation’s needs en route to fulfilling the noble ideas set out in the Declaration of Independence.

Politicians constantly attempt to corrupt language to their own selfish political ends, but Statesman mold their sentences and word choices to achieve the dreams outlined in the Declaration.

Pity it has always been so difficult for the masses to distinguish the two, as each generation must mewl before babbling, and babble before speaking, and speak before understanding, and understand before appreciating, and appreciate before taking action of their own to realize the Declaration of Independence anew in their own time.

But such is the nature of the human experience whether in 1709 or 2009. All that changes is the volume of information and understanding to be consumed before becoming enlightened activist in pursuit of the dreams of the Declaration of Independence becomes possible.

No small sociological contingency to weigh into the philosophical debate of modern times as to whether democratic processes are even capable of advancement anymore.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 5:11 PM
Comment #276150

David, you must recall that before Lincoln was against slavery he was for slavery. Voiced as much when he was running for Senator. “From the start, Lincoln made clear that, unlike Buchanan, he believed the national government had the power to crush the rebellion. Not an abolitionist, he held the slavery issue subordinate to that of preserving the Union, but soon perceived that the war could not be brought to a successful conclusion without freeing the slaves.” Seems more pragmatic and not so much abolitionist.

Seems that under different circumstances Lincoln might have made a different decision. Those modern day thinkers and writers occasionaly tend to leave out some small details. Jackson didn’t make the decision to move the indians by himself. His predecessor and congress had long sought such a solution for the indian problem.

We should not judge the Founder’s on the fact that they accepted slavery at the time. They had to make decisions based on the ‘circumstances on the ground’ which is what ole Andy did as well. I don’t like the idea of rewriting history with a modern bent. Maybe we should rewrite Lincoln based on todays Republican Party. BIG LOL.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2009 6:23 PM
Comment #276152

Abe disliked his father because he was so ignorant. Had nothing to do with him. Didn’t attend his funeral.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2009 6:26 PM
Comment #276159

Roy said: “David, you must recall that before Lincoln was against slavery he was for slavery.”

Yes, and before he was president, he was under 35 years old and not Constitutionally qualified to be president. So What!

Everyone changes positions on issues as a result of experience, it is called the human maturation process. Doesn’t have any import on my comments or comparison between the Presidents Lincoln and Jackson. The comparison was between them DURING their time as president. What they were or did BEFORE being president is irrelevant to my argument.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 7:07 PM
Comment #276162

Roy said: “Seems that under different circumstances Lincoln might have made a different decision.”

Yeah, and if I were born female instead of male I might have chosen a male for my mate instead of my current dear wife. Still has no bearing on the discussion at hand, the comparison of Lincoln and Jackson as presidents. Though I must confess a weakness in my argument regarding Jackson’s violation of the Constitution, since, Lincoln also violated provisions of the Constitution in the pursuit of the war.

Jackson however, was not facing dissolution of the Union as justification for employing ends justifying the means policies. Lincoln viewed the dissolution of the Union rightly as the dissolution of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and therefore, given the choice of suspending habeas corpus or preserving the Constitution and Union which were inseparable, he chose a lesser evil to salvage a greater good.

Jackson appears to have chosen to violate treaty and inhumanely treat human beings in order to preserve his popularity amongst his white voting supporters, and hence is career as President. Hardly a justification for violating the Constitution.

Lincoln would likely have resigned the presidency if it would have saved the Union and ended the abomination of slavery. Huge difference in motivations, national vs. personal.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 7:18 PM
Comment #276174

Both were mighty great men in the history of our nation.
Regarding there being too much democracy. Here is a related article by Gary Wood, Salt Lake Examiner:
“There have been many articles the last two weeks concerning the moves of several states to introduce legislation claiming certain rights under the 10th Amendment. When these articles are posted or socially bookmarked discussions seem to rise as to whether states are sovereign or not, in many people’s stated views they are not.

Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, Texas, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by an 83 to 13 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.

There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we’ve instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.

The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read “The Constitution in Exile” or “Who Killed the Constitution.”) When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.

Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill’s quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?

We’ve had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, “[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government.” (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.

Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Remember our history, not our modern traditions that are moving us toward representative democracy. Here is some recommended reading to help begin the stirring of our memory. Study these with friends and family as if you were studying the scriptures of your religion or the stats of your favorite sports team.

Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson’s Account of the Declaration

Independence a Solemn Day by Richard Henry Lee

U.S. Constitution and Amendments

Federalist Papers

Anti-Federalist Papers

1828 Webster’s Dictionary (learn the language of the founders)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Thanks for taking the time to visit. Do come back often and share the articles with others.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2009 9:12 PM
Comment #276186

Roy, our history represents evolution. Attempts to reverse engineer history will ALWAYS fail just as attempts to turn the hands of time back, will always fail.

If all people are to be created equal, with equal access and responsibility for relevant information regarding their own and the nation’s future, why would we not want to evolve as a people toward responsible democracy as part of the American Dream. Was preventing women the vote better for our nation and people? Was slavery better for the nation’s future?

There is opportunity cost associated with every action and decision. There are costs associated with progress and evolution of a species, a technology, or a nation. The fact that there are costs associated with growth and maturation should not be the rationale for rejecting growth and maturity, even if innocence and security of being taken care of, are the costs associated with growth and maturity.

Representative Democracy is a fine design for nationhood, provided both the representatives and the democratic voices of the people respond appropriately to the demands placed upon them in those roles as a balanced and checked form of governance. And how is each generation to learn to fulfill those responsible roles? In the same way all learning takes place; with good and wise teachers, willing students, and with errors and mistakes, and that gratifying growth in understanding as a result of these and perseverance.

Americans can choose to be told what to think by the political parties like children, or mature to the point of being able to think for themselves and voice that independent thought in their relationship with their representatives. Obama is calling upon us all to choose the latter. It is an opportunity for this nation to grow and mature to the next evolutionary level and manifest state of the ideals set down in the Declaration of Independence, just as Lincoln called upon Americans to grow to the next evolutionary level of abolition.

Such cultural and societal evolutionary steps are not accomplished in one election cycle, or even in one generation. But with the calling kept alive and the perseverance of the teachers and willing students, such evolutionary steps can be made in cultures and nations.

Our government representation is so poor precisely because the voting public has not yet matured to its role of check and balance upon those representatives, after having achieved universal suffrage less than 100 years ago. However, as Obama said last night, now is the time for each of us to take our respective responsibility and commit to it, and commit to the next generation being better educated, better prepared, and stronger than before to carry this nation’s evolution and unrealized ideals forward to realization.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2009 2:59 AM
Comment #276204

Andrew Johnson was sort of a Bonehead.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 25, 2009 2:53 PM
Comment #276206


David, there are 98 other numbers between 1 and a 100. If I suggest reform in some fashion you take the position that I want to take us back to the caveman days, eating raw meat, etc. I’m suggesting we took the wrong path when deciding on a Republic or Democracy. Had we stayed the true and narrow path with a Republic our civilization would be way beyond where we are today. Improved morals, less corruption, less greed, more freedom and liberty, more states rights and less federal intervention in our lives.
You wrote “our history represents evolution. Attempts to reverse engineer history will ALWAYS fail just as attempts to turn the hands of time back, will always fail.
If all people are to be created equal, with equal access and responsibility for relevant information regarding their own and the nation’s future, why would we not want to evolve as a people toward responsible democracy as part of the American Dream.”

Note that ‘all men being created equal’ was not born of our Democracy. The second para of the Declaration of Independence states as much. Our Democracy grew and creeped as little add on’s here and there over the last coupla hundred years. Now, Democracy has us by the throat. Now, every 3rd President is dealing with a financial crisis. Democracy has landed us in the hands of the elite or the top 1% in control of the majority, which is what has happened in every democracy that has existed in the world. None lasting longer than the United States. That alone tells me we need to get back on the path of the Republic. Obama’s speech last evening was akin to a dictator laying it out for his subjects. Like it or not, this is what your going to get and this is what is expected of you. Bypassing the states and holding out the carrot to the mayor’s across the country. Not carrying a whit about states rights, they took the carrot and hoping there will be more where those came from. Some states are refusing their carrots as some of the deals tied to the stick they don’’ like.
You seem to be saying that the reason Democracy is failing us is because we are not smart enough or mature enough to take adavantage of the opportunies of Democracy. Well, maybe we should stick with a Republic until we become better educated. Is it necessary for the public to spend half their adult life trying to track government so they can provide adequate check and balance?
I’m ready for the USDA, TVA, Rural Electric and a host of such subsidies to be abolished or out of government hands. I’m tired of the government making winners and losers. To big to fail is a Democractic option, not of the Republic.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 25, 2009 3:31 PM
Comment #276214

Roy said: “Had we stayed the true and narrow path with a Republic our civilization would be way beyond where we are today.”

That’s hilarious. Can I get an invite to your laboratory where you turn the hands of time back, change one item of history, and watch a parallel future unfold differently as a result of that one change?

Logically and empirically, your comment above is absurd in positing any certainty of such an outcome. History unfolds the way it does due to infinite variables, and there is no way any human being can calculate the myriad time line alteration effects on those variables as a result of one seminal variable change.

To be practical, we have the present to act, history as a guide, and the future will only in part rest upon what we do in the present.

A republic, Roy, elevates the self-serving to offices of opportunity to self-serve. It is the democratic elections and informed electorate that are required to check and balance the self-serving who aspire to positions of power and opportune access to inside wealth making deals. There are exceptions of course, but polls show little confidence in the Congress roster regarding their be dedicated to the welfare of the people and nation. R’s in the 30% range and D’s in the 40% range.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2009 5:24 PM
Comment #276222

David said:

That’s hilarious. Can I get an invite to your laboratory where you turn the hands of time back, change one item of history, and watch a parallel future unfold differently as a result of that one change?

Then David said:

A republic, Roy, elevates the self-serving to offices of opportunity to self-serve.

This too may be hilarous, because there still is no laboratory that proves a republic displays these traits any worse than a democracy does.

Since this leaves only opinion and conjecture as a foundation for these comments, I would stress the value of 21st century communication to solve the problems of the 19th century republic and the 20th century psuedo-democracy.

Roy asks:

Is it necessary for the public to spend half their adult life trying to track government so they can provide adequate check and balance?

It is obviously necessary when the public are responsible for electing every person in the federal government. The people elect the HOR, the people elect the Senate, and the people elect the President. The entire government checks the people constantly but the people check the HOR and 1/3 of the senate just every 2 years! The president every 4 years!

The people should be able to elect state officials to check and balance federal officials in the senate. It is the original intent. It isn’t a hairbrained scheme in need of experimentation. The state legislature should check it’s senators 100% of the time. State legislatures should have a supervisory role over it’s senators. State legislatures should allow senators to do only what the state legislatures say they should do and forbid the senators to defy their will. For the state legislatures to do this correctly they should be able to recall senators at any time.

The repeal of the 17th amendment would reduce the MSM to the state and local level. The entertainment would stay the same but the functions of the government and the events that effect that government would be generated at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2009 7:09 PM
Comment #276224

Some WIKI informtion: Representative democracy is not inconsistent with oligarchy or several other less than pure democratic or non-democratic forms of government..

Oligarchy: a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military influence or occult spiritual hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for “few” and “rule”. Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. This type of power by its very nature may not be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to remain “the power behind the throne”, exerting control through economic means. Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group.

Some of the issues surrounding the related notion of a direct democracy using the Internet and other communications technologies are dealt with in e-democracy. More concisely, the concept of open source governance applies principles of the free software movement to the governance of people, allowing the entire populace to participate in government directly, as much or as little as they please. This development strains the traditional concept of democracy, because it does not give equal representation to each person. Some implementations may even be considered democratically-inspired meritocracies, where contributors to the code of laws are given preference based on their ranking by other contributors.


A representative democracy that emphasizes individual liberties is called a liberal democracy. One that does not is an illiberal democracy. There is no necessity that individual liberties are respected in a representative democracy.”

Weary Willie said : “Since this leaves only opinion and conjecture as a foundation for these comments, I would stress the value of 21st century communication to solve the problems of the 19th century republic and the 20th century psuedo-democracy.’

Right on WW. I’m telling David there are 98 numbers between 1 and a 100. While I can’t ‘pick the number’ I will know it when it see it.

WW said: “The people should be able to elect state officials to check and balance federal officials in the senate. It is the original intent. It isn’t a hairbrained scheme in need of experimentation. “ Couldn’t agree more. The Fed should work with the States and leave the people alone. The State’s should work with the people as was the original intent. That would leave the Fed reduced in magnitude by about 99.5%. That’s a problem for an oligarchy.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 25, 2009 7:32 PM
Comment #276225
Lincoln viewed the dissolution of the Union rightly as the dissolution of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, ..

David, I’m unsure if he “rightly” had this view. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have the same stature among states that remained loyal to them. The over-riding athoratah was “Manifest Destiny”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2009 7:44 PM
Comment #276227

Polk, (pronounced Poek) started a war with Mexico for the same reason. Polk was a big fan of Jackson, and raised a fan of Jefferson.

He pushed the people out of half of Mexico for one reason. “Manifest Destiny”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Polk

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2009 7:53 PM
Comment #276229

Polk was unfairly blamed for reinforcing the south’s position on slavery. Granted, all of the territory aquired by the U.S. via. this war was in the south. I could see how this could influence an anti-slavery bias. Not too much is made of the aquisitions made peacefully in the Northwest.

Polk united the contigious “lower 48”, but he didn’t keep control of Mexico City. He let the slavery issue interceed because Mexico would not support slavery (my opinion). Polk isolated the south and slavery by allowing Mexico to exist.

If I could open a new laboratory and devote it’s existence towards proving Mexico would be much better off if Polk had retained control of Mexico City, I would. But, it would be just another pork-barrel project my opponents would use against me.

Manifest Destiny is now a defacto-licence to control the entire planet.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2009 8:58 PM
Comment #276232

http://ecv5440.org/PigWar.html

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2009 10:22 PM
Comment #276238

I think her biggest lesson is to stop watching celebrity, sensationalism based TV.

Posted by: gergle at February 26, 2009 2:53 AM
Comment #276242

WW said: “The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have the same stature among states that remained loyal to them.”

Only until one or more other states decided to secede. That was a slippery slope that would destroy the Constitution and Declaration of THESE UNITED STATES.

Not even Canada could afford to allow Quebec to secede just a decade ago or so ago. To lose one province over a federal policy which a province does not agree with would only lead to others doing the same down the road.

Lincoln surely saw this potential. And as a matter of verified history, he resolved not to let it happen under his presidency.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2009 4:59 AM
Comment #276243

Roy said: “The Fed should work with the States and leave the people alone.”

The net effect of what you propose however, would cut the people out of the governance loop. If you don’t like our Constitution, find another. But arguing for a different constitutional design today in America is an exercise in futility. OK if you one needs to unproductively pass time in their life en route toward death.

The reason our democracy works as well as it does is because enough people who have no interest or no knowledge of what is going on, don’t vote. This gives more concentrated power to the duopoly parties, traditionally. But, that isn’t even valid anymore, since registered Independent voters now outnumber either Dem or Rep registered voters, which means voters holding no loyalty to either of the duopoly parties now control the popular vote election direction based on criteria other than Party.

And you would kill this evolution before it reaps its potential maturity? I am glad your argument makes no sense to voters by advocating they be cut out of the loop as the check and balance against their government. The evolution will continue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2009 5:08 AM
Comment #276244

WW said: “This too may be hilarous, because there still is no laboratory that proves a republic displays these traits any worse than a democracy does.”

You can’t see the nose on your face, WW. We have a Republic that demonstrates what I said is true in real time. Have not our representatives in our Republic governed toward self-serving ends, in the absence of voters holding incumbents of that ilk accountable on election day? Yes, absolutely.

No laboratory needed to turn back the hands of time, WW, it is right there in front of us as real life.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2009 5:12 AM
Comment #276256

The take-away I get from this story is somewhat different, though parallel.

What I want to know is where are all the pro-lifers I expected to be tripping over themselves to help this brave little lady out, when she is going to have such a tough row to hoe now with 14 little dependents and no job or any good prospects?

I mean, the basic idea of pro-lifers is that we shouldn’t play God by, for example killing tiny innocent unborn humans or removing feeding tubes from people like Terry Schiavo, but apparently now that all 14 of them are more or less safely breathing oxygen, they want them off the public dole, right?

I think this whole episode even more dramatically than ever highlights the shameful hypocrisy of one of the right’s mainstay constituencies.

Posted by: Dick Cheney at February 26, 2009 12:46 PM
Comment #276271

Good take DC, but the sarcasm will go over many heads.
News today is saying that Kaiser may try to prevent her from being able to take them home because of her inability to care for them and their siblings already at home.
The lady (?) is also now considering doing a porn film………can’t wait for that one!!!!
She definitely needs some help, and I don’t mean any way but psychologically.

Posted by: jane doe at February 26, 2009 4:00 PM
Comment #276281

Dick Cheney

she had those babys through artificial means, she wanted to have them which makes your argument ridiculous. it wasn’t an accident, so abortion was never in the cards.

jane doe

“The lady (?) is also now considering doing a porn film………can’t wait for that one!!!!”

yep. they said on the news last night that vivid video has offered her one million, i think for a one year contract. want to make bet as to whether she takes the contract. she’s a classy broad alright.

Posted by: dbs at February 26, 2009 4:29 PM
Comment #276282

More to the saga of Democracy gone bad:
From: http://www.capsweb.org/
“February 24, 2009
By Jerome R. Corsi
WorldNetDaily

Illegal aliens can apply for mortgage relief under the Obama administration’s $275 billion plan, according to immigration experts and a group the government will use to help homeowners modify loans.

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., told WND approximately 1 million households headed by illegal immigrants acquired mortgages through the beginning of 2007, before the housing bubble burst.

“There is no legal prohibition against illegal immigrants owning homes,” he said, “and in most cases mortgage lenders will accept a taxpayer ID or a Matricula Consular card issued by a Mexican Consulate office as identification to illegal immigrants from Mexico.”

My taxes are being used to help pay for child care for illegals in this country, help pay for their hospital visits and police protection, and help pay for their mortgage. Way too much Democracy for me.

David wrote: “A republic, Roy, elevates the self-serving to offices of opportunity to self-serve. It is the democratic elections and informed electorate that are required to check and balance the self-serving who aspire to positions of power and opportune access to inside wealth making deals. There are exceptions of course, but polls show little confidence in the Congress roster regarding their be dedicated to the welfare of the people and nation. R’s in the 30% range and D’s in the 40% range. “
Absolutely correct, there are many negatives to a republic and it was carefully studied and understood to be an inferior approach to government. Democracy was inferior (mainly due to the short life and violent death. See Sir Alex Tytlers (Scottish historian 1742 - 1813) sequence as well as the 1928 U.S. Army Training Manual which clearly ends with its explanation of democracy with “Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.” The Army knew a bad thing when it saw it. Interesting how a decade or so earlier the Commander-in-Chief was declaring the need for us to spread democracy around the world and we’ve sung that dangerous tune ever since).
If I have led you to believe I support a pure republican form of government that is my error. We were formed with the goal of creating a “more perfect union” and both individually are historically proven bad governments. Additionally a strong national approach, as supported by Hamilton (originally a monarchist) and Madison forming a coalition to push a strong, single central government. Our nation was a true grand experiment in taking the lessons of history and attempting to meld a union built with the three pillars of federalism, republicanism, and democracy. The original bicameral legislative branch was where the purest democracy was with the House being selected by direct popular vote. The Senate was to represent the states and the House the people as a further check and balance. (Of course we know what the 16th and 17th did in leaving us a mere facade of bicameral safety with a more accurately described unicameral Congress since both now are chambers of the people and the states have been left out but I digress.)
It is more than an informed electorate and democratic elections that provided the necessary checks and balances. It was the careful election schemes (including the original, and excellent Electoral College prior to its almost immediate adulteration in 1800) combined with the legislatiive, executive, and judicial. Funny today, the judicial was thought to be the least feared and most useful for checking the federal or general government UNLESS it ever combined with either of the other two. It then becomes the referee and player of one team which skews the results of the game for an opposing team. Combine that with the silly notion of having a living rule book and watch out. Perhaps the experiment would have lasted longer if they would have simply adjusted the Articles of Confederation instead of muddying the water with the Constitution. Here’s something to ponder however. We have a rich history of nationalist governments and democracies failing. We have a decent history of republics failing. The experiment our founders launched has only had one chance and I believe it deserves another. Before representative democracy each independent nation (state) had what the people wanted in their state. The states only abridged their political liberty in minor enumerated areas and locked the federal or general government down with a balancing act with a bit of representative democracy, a bit of republicanism, and a limited federal agreement between 13 sovereign countries.
David wrote: “You can’t see the nose on your face, WW. We have a Republic that demonstrates what I said is true in real time. Have not our representatives in our Republic governed toward self-serving ends, in the absence of voters holding incumbents of that ilk accountable on election day? Yes, absolutely.”
Agree. For that reason we need a new 3rd Party with a different political attitude. One that provides for citizen’s oversight of elected and appointed officials. A Party that puts ACCOUNTABILITY into the political equation. A Party that can reform government and keep it that way.


“Who will help me grow my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the cow.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Not I,” said the pig.
“Not I,” said the goose.”
Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen, and so she did. She planted her crop, and the wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the duck..
“Out of my classification,” said the pig.
“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen, and so she did…
At last it came time to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake the bread?” asked the little red hen.

“That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.
“I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.
“If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, “No, I shall eat all five loaves.”

“Excess profits!” cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
“Capitalist leech!” screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
“I demand equal rights!” yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”
“But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.
“Exactly,” said Barack the farmer. “That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.”

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, for now I truly understand.”
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the ‘party’ and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. ‘Fairness’ had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared…so long as there was free bread that ‘the rich’ were paying for.

EPILOGUE

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That’s $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn’t remember anything.

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 26, 2009 4:41 PM
Comment #276284

Roy

“My taxes are being used to help pay for child care for illegals in this country, help pay for their hospital visits and police protection, and help pay for their mortgage. Way too much Democracy for me.”

you left out pay to educate, and feed thier anchor babbies. sorry just had to throw that one in there.

Posted by: dbs at February 26, 2009 4:50 PM
Comment #276285

Roy

“Sir Alex Tytlers (Scottish historian 1742 - 1813)”

was he the one that said democracy as a form of gov’t was doomed when the general electorate discovered they could vote themselves generous gifts out of the public treasury.

Posted by: dbs at February 26, 2009 4:54 PM
Comment #276287

Roy , “”Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.”” :)

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 26, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #276288

This is another subject and His gift to his dedicated employees. http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1417302.html

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 26, 2009 5:05 PM
Comment #276291

Right dbs. If a Democracy hasn’t lasted more than a coupla hundred years we better keep a bag packed, don’t you think? Here is his full quote: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

Least I ferget Rodney!

“”Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.”” :)

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 26, 2009 5:14 PM
Comment #276298

dbs, and my taxes went toward a war which I did not support or approve of in Iraq. Your point is what? That I should have been relieved of my tax burden for the Iraq War on the grounds that I did not approve?

Thanks for the chuckle. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2009 6:07 PM
Comment #276304

david

roy made that statement i just added the anchor baby part. your slippin old fella.;-)

Posted by: dbs at February 26, 2009 8:06 PM
Comment #276311

That to David. I wanted no part of a grab for oil by the oil patch gang. What can we do? Support a reform Party that can put accountability into the political equation. Let’s suppose Bush was a member of our new 3rd Party. Let’s suppose he upset a certain number of Party members during his firt term mandating a membership vote up or down. If Bush had failed to receive 66% of the membership vote he would have been rejected from the Party. Thus, circumventing his being reelected for a s second term and startint a war we didn’t want. Likely too, that our Party would have inforced immigration law thereby alleviating my pain over paying taxes to support an illegal work force for the business folks.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 26, 2009 10:25 PM
Comment #276322

FORD TO OPEN NEW ENGINE PLANT, Ford’s EcoBoost engines combine direct injection technology and turbo-charging for improved fuel efficiency and lower CO2 emissions. Ford says they can achieve up 20 percent better fuel and 15 percent lower CO2 emissions, compared with larger displacement engines, without sacrificing power. Alright!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_bi_ge/ford_plant_ohio

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 27, 2009 9:36 AM
Comment #276324

Yeah Rodney, it looks like Ford plans to hang in for a while longer. Their Exec’s agreed to a 30% pay cut and they are steering clear of the bailouts. Note that the ‘Car Czar’s’aren’t necesarily buying American. 2 of the 18 drive foreign cars. Geitner drives a Subaru and Summars drives a Mazda. I still believe GM and Crysler are just looking for a bailout to China.

and, oh yeah!

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 27, 2009 10:05 AM
Comment #276333

I’m not talking about abortion, dbs.

I’m talking about the pro-lifers supporting someone who has all these kids in large part because she’s bought into the pro-lifer argument that destroying an embryo is tantamount to murder. She couldn’t bring herself to commit murder, so she had the embryos implanted.

Isn’t that the pro-lifer argument? That’s the ridiculous argument, not mine.

Posted by: Dick Cheney at February 27, 2009 11:48 AM
Comment #276409

dbs, roy ellis-
We all love our country, but who has faith in its abilities? The Republicans and those on the Right Wing seem all too willing to give up on Americans, to believe that social spending will turn the society lazy and unaccountable. Never mind that we venerate one of the most liberal generations of recent history as the hard workers, in comparison to their far more conservative children and grandchildren.

For years, the Republican preach pessimism in government. When they took over power, finally, after decades of struggle, their pessimism became a self-fulfilling prophecy, with Republicans doing just about everything to undermine the regulatory and social welfare functions of the government that they could.

They became the most wasteful become cutting waste in government meant admitting government could be run efficiently. They put the most officious, unqualified bureacrats in place, because people shouldn’t be relying on government anyways, and they needed the kind of people who could prevent as much government money as they could from going out. And anyways, if government is a joke, why not put people in place whose qualifications are just the same, too? Reward your contributors and lackies, it won’t matter!

The Republicans sought to destroy, sought to oppose, and simply assumed that the pain this would cause could simply be excused as for the public’s good. But few others are going to look at a cratering economy, and see such insistence on requisite economic disintegration as a good thing.

The Republicans forget that under the liberal system, America’s infrastructure and technology vastly improved, that a new standard of living was born, and with it, new expectations as to how well and how equitably the society was supposed to function. People went with the Republicans with Reagan and the Gingrich Revolution because they could get away with a bit of relaxation of that, because mistakes in the administration of that liberal society and jarring changes had shaken their faith in the system. Unfortunately for the Republicans and those on the Right, the GOP essentially took thirty years to recapitulate the mistakes that they rubbed in the Democrats faces, and their own from the thirties for good measure.

We have to consider something here: that the Republicans could only sustain their success if they managed to successfully replace the usefulness of the Liberal system.

The Republicans could have been hardcore rooters out of waste and corruption. They could have worked out, and tested at municipal and state levels plans that would enable government to do more with less, that would successfully transfer what were public burdens onto private shoulders. They could have done all that.

Instead, they embarked on a quest to simply destroy the power of liberalism, which is a very different thing from replacing it, or at least pushing it out. Politics was seen as war, and tactics were seen as best which could inflict the most damage on Democrats and Liberals.

But because the Republicans would not offer alternatives to fulfill the needs of a society that had grown into greater prosperity and complexity, they were always living on borrowed time, and always relying on the discrediting of their opponents as viable alternatives to them.

This lasted until people felt that Republicans were such terrible politicians that Democrats were the only viable alternative.

The Obama Administration, in part, owes its existence in part to the loss of patience in Republican methods, and the feeling that if Republicans are allowed further opportunity to limit government, America will not be able to recover from it. People are willing to let Obama take big risks because they feel that things are so bad (and not merely because Obama’s making speeches) that half-measures no longer have any place in policy. We’re long past the point of easy, early solutions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2009 12:04 PM
Comment #276443

Stephen, somewhat agree with you until your last para. “People are willing to let Obama take big risks because they feel that things are so bad (and not merely because Obama’s making speeches) that half-measures no longer have any place in policy. We’re long past the point of easy, early solutions.”

Agree, Rep’s spent like drunken sailors, just whizzing money away while working to break the back of the middle class worker. They even refused to enforce federal law, fence the S. border and sought to give amnesty to millions in their quest for a globalized economy. Earmarks were rampant in every bill.

Now we have the Dem’s in control and expecting to see quite a change. The Dem’s are spending like drunken sailors, just whizzing money away while working to break the back of the middle class worker. They are refusing to enforce federal law, fence the S. border and seeking to give amnesty to millions in their quest for a globalized economy. Earmarks are rampant in every bill.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 28, 2009 8:00 PM
Comment #276516

dbs, dagnabbit. Thanks again for pointing out my misreferencing of speaker. I will have to look more closely at your and other’s short addendums for those tell tale quote marks. Appreciate the feedback, dbs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 9:25 PM
Comment #276528

Roy Ellis-
Okay, have you seen the numbers? If we’re speaking of American support for what Obama’s doing, it’s high, and getting higher.

Some people make the mistake of believing the propaganda about the Democrats. The truth is, Republicans wouldn’t have originally said such things about Democrats if the Democrats had no interest in rejecting socialism. There’d be no use.

Step back from the hotbutton issues. Why are we spending so much? Because the economists believe three things: The Fed can’t really push much more money into the economy than it already is. Consumers are functionally and psychologically unable to spend enough at this time to do the same. The private sector banks are more or less insolvent. Government is all we have left at this point, not by choice, but by necessity.

If all we use to determine what kind of government policy we use is policy by slogan, rather than policy that looks at the facts, we will get government we neither need nor want.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2009 12:49 AM
Comment #276590

Stephen D.,

You make an incredibly important observation about human behavior here. Was a time we learned traditional ways of doing things, because we respected the teachers who taught us how, and innovation and creative approaches, while sufficient for evolution of the human species, was largely ostracized.

Fast forward to the present. Now, most of us lead such harried lives against a clock, that we place a very high premium on shortcuts to getting things done faster, whether it be coded symbolic text twitter messages or subscribing to political ideology which doesn’t fit the reality of the situation.

I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the enormous cost in waste and inefficiency which results from this mismatch of ideology to real life situations demanding out of the box approaches to succeed. Someone has, or will, build an entire book or new ideology around the proposal that this one fundamental attribute of modern humans will be the downfall of modern civilization, and make a very convincing argument in the doing.

Your comment belongs in the philosophical journals for debate and exploration. Alvin Toffler touched on this with Future Shock, but, just by implication, not directly.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 2, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #276671

Stephen D. - it’s a no brainer for me. Wihin a year or two we will be looking at $12T of federal debt. I’d rather just go ahead and let AIG go under. And, don’t you know? AIG is planning to sell off some of the assets thereby making them SMALLER. Which is what Anti-trust law is supposed to do, or to have done. And, guess what? The Fed is looking to the smaller, well managed banks to hold us up through the bad times. Why should be be rewarding the greedy, too big to fail banks while expecting the small, community banks to pull the sled for the recovery? I’m glad that I’m not an economist or someone having to support their college professor’s big bang theory.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 3, 2009 3:53 PM
Comment #276834

Roy, FYI, the completion of spending in Bush’s last budget and off budget emergency appropriations brings us to 12 Trillion Dollars national debt.

Obama’s Economic Recovery and Reinvestmtnt Act and 2009-2010 budget will take us easily beyond 12 trillion national debt. How much beyond depends upon the signing amount of the actual 2009-2010 budget, which will include appropriations for underwriting a halt to falling property values, dealing with the toxic assets on financial corporation’s balance sheets, more investment in energy independence, infrastructure maintenance, and the usual spending for two wars and funding government services and foreign aid.

We will be into 13 billion or higher after the next budget is actually spent between Oct 1, 2009 and Sept. 30, 2010.

Oct. 2001 thru Sept. 30, 2009 regular appropriations and so-called off-budget emergency spending fell under Bush’s signatures (less the unfinished appropriations from 2008-2009 and Obama’s ER&R Act), representing a growth in national debt from 5.65 Trillion to over 12 trillion under Pres. Bush.

Given the economic crises, I will be amazed if the national debt in Obama’s 4 years remains under $16 Trillion. It is mind boggling, and perilous to be sure. But a collapsed economy which forces government and American corporations to default on debt and bankrupt, would be a guaranteed disaster for American workers and families for several generations to come.

I cannot begin to express the miniscule sense of justice I feel knowing the Republicans, largely responsible for these circumstances from unnecessary war to flagrant unprecedented deficit spending which utterly failed to invest in our economic future, are not only out of power, but, will wear this period’s albatross and sinister consequences for at least another generation.

It is little compensation for the hardships created for so many 10’s of millions of American people, but, just in part, nonetheless.

I could be proven wrong, but, I simply cannot fathom the Democrats bearing witness to the cancer upon the Republican Party and its elected leaders, and repeating their grotesque errors in governance. It would be so completely and fully illogical. But, I have witnessed some pretty illogical behaviors by folks in my time, some of whom knew it at the time, and went ahead anyway.

We shall see.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2009 1:42 AM
Comment #276915

In my lifetime I’ve seen little difference between the Dems and the Reps. The Dems are promising a tax cut which is a guarantee that your taxes are going up. I think they will follow Britain and the EU’s lead as far as trade and monetary policy. The healthcare thing is already in the hands of industry and healthcare lobbyist. It’s gonna be a real barn burner for the next 4 years.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 5, 2009 9:09 PM
Comment #276986

Relating to my post above, here is an excerpt from a Yahoo article contrasting the Dem’s and Rep’s relative to ‘show me the money’ politics; “In his eight years, Republican Ronald Reagan increased government spending by 69 percent, led by a 92 percent increase in defense spending as he built up the military to confront the Soviet Union . (These numbers aren’t adjusted for inflation.)

With the economy growing by the time he left office in 1989, the size of the government as a share of total economic production had shrunk slightly, from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent.

Democrat Bill Clinton increased government spending by 32 percent from 1993 to 2001, brought down largely by the rapid slowdown in defense spending after the Cold War ended. Defense spending grew by just 4 percent during the Clinton years.

The combination of restrained growth in government and a booming economy meant that government’s size as a percentage of the economy dropped from 21.4 percent to 18.5 percent in the Clinton years.

George W. Bush boosted government spending by 68 percent in his eight-year presidency, spearheaded by a 126 percent increase for defense as he waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq . Bush’s spending totals don’t include the $700 billion bank bailout added last fall to his final fiscal year, or the $787 billion stimulus package added early this year.”

In other words, the Rep’s are lobbied primarily by the defense industry and the Dem’s by environmentals, healthcare and education.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 6, 2009 8:24 PM
Post a comment