Third Party & Independents Archives

“No politician wants their chances of reelection reduced to coin toss odds. They will change their agenda and process if their reelection depends upon it.”

Posted by David R. Remer at March 13, 2010 11:49 AM

There is one glaring problem with your proposition Mr. Remer. Suppose it works and better legislators, those responding to the public will, are voted into office. Then, following your premise, they will be voted out in the following election simply because they are the incumbant. What am I missing here?

The tea party are conservatives. The coffee party are liberals. Both are corpocracy oriented.

IMO, without a third party on the left to counter the corpocracy There can be no true consent of the governed.

I have little faith in VOID, I think it underestimates the power of greed. Corporations have demonstrated their ability to get around regulation and their ability to manipulate the political system. They will continue to demonstrate their abilities with or without VOID until or unless the people are willing to support a challenge to corpocracy from the left.

Agree David, VOID is a good strategy to begin the return government to the people. I am anxious to use my vote against the next incumbent(s) that step up for election.

jlw, IMO a 3rd Party ‘with a different political attitude’ is the ONLY real way to reform government. But a few elections cycles of strong VOID activity would weaken the Corpocracy, making it easier for a 3rd Party to get established. For sure, VOID action is not going to make things worse.

IMO, we should consider the reasons behind for a strong VOID action. What has transpired, incrementally, since WWII is nothing short of treason. The Constitution has been shredded. Yet, it is doubtful that you would find anything in Congressional records whereby you could hang ‘treason’ on the neck of any one individual or a group. Not so with the Executive Branch. Those who committed us to the WTO, World Court, IMF, NAFTA, etc. were in the Executive and their works done through Executive Order. And, there are hundreds of quasi-government folks like David Rockefeller who could be singled out for treasonous acts.

To be sure it was democracy that did us in. Nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence is democracy mentioned yet we have it. We have too much democracy where anything goes. Progressives have used ‘democracy’ to incrementally deliver us to this ‘corporacratic-socialist’ era we now have.

They will incrementally do their work in stealth, in secret, behind the scenes, try to hide the audit trails as to how things came about. But, sometimes they are forced to work through Congress. Recall the 1st amnesty during the Regan era. Ignored the people and did as they pleased. Same thing with this HC thing. The people are strongly against the HC bill but Congress is determined to use whatever gimmick it takes to push it through. Taxation without representation IMO.

Here are a couple of good url’s that might help folks understand why they need to VOID their incumbents. Gives some insight as to how the public was deceived while treason worked incrementally behind the scenes.

http://stopthenorthamericanunion.com/NAUArticles.html
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TreasonAbounds.html

Maybe we should all just ask less from politicians who have proven unable, over various ages and various cultures, to make detailed decisions for their citizens (or what they usually called them - subjects).

They generally take the oath of office which goes something like “I will uphold the Constitution - - -

Doesn’t seem an overpowering task. I want to VOID them more for what they don’t say than what they do. For instance, who, and how many stepped up the plate when Phil Gramm slipped the loophole into the Commodoties Futures Modernization Act? Between that time and the downfall of ENRON did not some Congressperson realize what Phil had done?

Why would any one of them not step up and demand US immigration law be enforced. If they don’t like the law they can work to change it, that’s their job. It’s also their job to see that public law is enforced.

As representatives of the people, IMO, they are a pathetic bunch.

Another example of Progressivism by inaction from today’s Wash Post. Notes that average wait in immigration court is 439 days nationwide, 713 in LA and 612 in Boston. Va. and Md. are among the 10 states with the longest wait, averaging 478 and 430 days respectively. Immigration judges can be appointed by the attorney general w/o need of approval by congress.

Also note that one Md. company, Murray Hill, Inc. is running for political office. The company will be the first ‘corporate person’ to run for office.

How many leaped forth to counter the SC ruling whereby foreign heads of state can pay for political ads in the US elections? Oh, you say, government acts in slow and diliberate ways. Agree, when the need fits. Likely no action will be taken until right after the 2012 elections or perhaps longer should O’bama win. Gives the foreigners a couple of swings at bat for 2010 and 2012. Might help out the Corpocracy somewhat, dontcha hope?

Disgusted more for what they don’t do than what they do.

Royal Flush, I see the same problem.

In the last election cycle Harris County flushed out many Republican judges. This was in part due to a scandal in the DA’s office. I watch a local access show here with a couple of attorneys that discuss local legal politics. They point out with these political flushes, good judges go out with the bad in these incumbent turnovers, and more bad judges come in with the tide.

The Coffee Party’s basic philosophy is still half baked brewed.

The gitchy editor in me couldn’t resist:)

Roy, I agree 100% that VOID won’t hurt and could possibly help. I’m just aware of capitals ability to corrupt.

The progressives are late comers to the illegal immigrant issue. They opposed it when it was happening. It was a conservative/liberal job and it was primarily about money. The liberals got the additional bonus of their progressive multiculturalism hoping to turn them into good liberal voters. Their good has turned Mexico into a virtual state of anarchy which is spilling over into America.

Illegal immigration is reality now, nothing will change that. I don’t hate them. I don’t even begrudge them coming here. For the most part, they are just like most of us, hard working and just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Now that the liberals have decided to leave the illegal immigrants out of the health care bill in an attempt to fulfill Obama’s pre election promise at any cost, the progressives are representing them in an attempt to turn them into good progressive Democrats that will oppose the corpocracy.

All those corpocracy bills that the liberals and conservatives passed were only opposed by the progressives. Just look at the votes cast and you will see that this is true. The only time that the liberals and blue dogs joined with progressives was to oppose the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.

Christine, if we do what you say, that is exactly what we will be-subjects. We will be right back to the good old days before the depression of 1896 and the Sherman Act. Government, at least our government, has always been the subject of capital. Learning from the past, capital and the politicians have legalized corruption.

This health care bill makes Harding’s Ohio boy’s and Teapot Dome look like a pimple of the side of a mountain in terms of the amount of tax dollars given to corporations. The only real difference between your politicians and the Democrats is who pays. Will only the workers pay or will the rich have to pay to.

The reality is that the workers are going to pay because wealth almost always finds a way to pass their burden on to the workers or consumers.

Keeping that reality in mind and the reality that something has to be done, it is my opinion that the politicians should at least have the decency to make it as cost effective as possible by eliminating the for profit middlemen.

Royal Flush said: “There is one glaring problem with your proposition Mr. Remer. Suppose it works and better legislators, those responding to the public will, are voted into office. Then, following your premise, they will be voted out in the following election simply because they are the incumbant. What am I missing here?”

What you are missing, RF, is the goal of anti-incumbent voting, which was clearly stated in the article:

To change the results of government, voters have to hold their own representatives responsible for failing to change those disappointing results.

VOID goes straight to the heart of the mechanics of our political system, to effect a strategy change. Politicians want to be reelected. If Voters vote for challengers instead of incumbents seeking reelection, the winning challengers will be forced to acknowledge that the disappointing results of government is what has to change if they wish to be reelected.

The VOID objective is good governance which the majority of anti-incumbent voters can approve of. I, as an anti-incumbent voter, will STOP voting anti-incumbent when the challengers and incumbents who win, agree amongst themselves, to make this nation’s long term viability their number one priority.

I, as an anti-incumbent voter, will STOP voting anti-incumbent when the challengers and incumbents who win, agree amongst themselves, to put an end to gerrymandering, put an end to corporate money in politics, put an end to mid-week voting, put an end to the revolving door of K-Street and Capital Hill, put an end deficit spending except for national emergencies.

What you miss is the goal of VOID: a government whose actions a majority of Americans can approve of. Currently, the DIS-approval rating of Congress stands at 71%. Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. (Rasmussen 2-2010).

If a ‘good’ legislator is elected by other criteria, but, who fails to persuade the rest of Congress to produce results the people can approve of, then that legislator is INEFFECTIVE, by definition, and is equally a part of the problem, not the solution.

It is pointless, and counter-productive to have a minority of ‘good-results’ oriented Congress persons. As a minority, their good intentions are not realized for the people. As long as the majority of Congress is producing bad results, there is, for all intents and purposes, no such thing as a ‘good’ Congress person, only ‘good’ ineffective Congress persons. And yes, they should be voted out too, UNTIL the majority of Congress are willing to produce legislative results the majority of the voters can approve of.

A collective anti-incumbent response at the polls can, and will, achieve a collective response from the majority in Congress, to amend their ways and provide governance which the majority of Americans can approve of, (which is a measurable and empirical objective). Until the polls reflect a majority approval of governance from Congress, I am compelled to vote anti-incumbent as a responsible voter.

The question then, is: Why aren’t you an anti-incumbent voter? To vote for an incumbent, while disapproving of the Congress’ results, is to vote AGAINST one’s own self-interest. Why would you do that?

jlw said: “I have little faith in VOID, I think it underestimates the power of greed.”

The power of greed only works on incumbents, or exiting Congress persons seeking affluence through the K-Street revolving door, jlw. VOID completely short circuits that greed relationship between politicians and K-Street, by making the influence of money irrelevant.

K-Street contributes to a politician’s campaign but, that politician still loses their reelection bid by VOID voters disappointed with the results of Congress. The K-Street contributions become irrelevant. K-Street funds a challenger. But, that challenger is a one term politician at the hands of VOID voters, if the majority of Americans still disapprove of the results of Congress. The power of greed is rendered irrelevant. The power of the voters removes the power of greed as the determinant of election outcomes. The voter’s approval of Congress’s results becomes the determinant of election outcomes, not greed, when enough voters subscribe to the strategy and goal of VOID.

gergle said: “They point out with these political flushes, good judges go out with the bad in these incumbent turnovers, and more bad judges come in with the tide.”

As I said to RF above: “If a ‘good’ legislator is elected by other criteria, but, who fails to persuade the rest of Congress to produce results the people can approve of, then that legislator is INEFFECTIVE, by definition, and is equally a part of the problem, not the solution.”

Replace the word legislator, with judge, and the same statement applies. A ‘good judge’, is not an effective judge, if the results of the judicial system at that level of government remains in the disappoval column of the majority of voters. A truly ‘good’ judge, is one who is effective in persuading other judges to act responsibly in the view of voters who elect those judges.

I personally don’t believe judges should be elected, but, that is a whole other topic. As long as they are elected, however, that need to become 1 term judges, until the majority of the voting public can give a passing grade to the entire judicial system at that voting district level.

As I wrote earlier, I do believe VOID is a useful tool to begin the process of reforming government. But VOID is indirectly lacking in long term strategy to remove the hard core and long tenured politician. Reason being, the voter can only vote for/against elected officials in their state. And, the syndrome of ‘the problem is with your rep, not mine’ is strongly embedded in the mindset of many voters.

Wouldn’t you rather be allowed to vote for/against Congresspersons AND political appointees, Ambassadors, UN reps and the like on a nationwide basis? Would that not be more effective? Yes, but impossible you say.

Not if you support a 3rd Party ‘with a different political attitude’ such as the Republic Sentry Party. Party rules provide for members to serve an oversight role for their elected AND appointed officials. If 20% of members register pro=forma complaints about a Party member who is an elected/appointed official then a mandatory vote is called for. If the official fails to garner 60% favorable vote that official is automatically rejected from the Party. Congressperson’s and appointee’s at the federal level are voted on by national Party members BECAUSE Congressperson’s actions effect EVERY person in the nation. Thus, it is unlikely that Massa (?) would have made it as far as he did if he were a member of the Republic Sentry Party. Maybe some Party member would have dug up some dirt on him from his Navy days or elsewhere long before ‘tickle me elmo’ played out.

There are other reasons why a 3rd Party ‘with a different political attitude’ is necessary for any reform to be achieved. Ask the people what the major problem is with government and IMO 95% of voters would agree the major problem is that we have the best government money can buy. The situation begs for campaign finance reform. Everything congress touches is tained by the money influence. And, it’s crystal clear that congress will not, can not reform itself. Analogous to walking up to two lions fighting over a piece of meat - ‘here kitty, kitty, you guys stop fighting now.’

CFR can ONLY come through a 3rd Party ‘with a different political attitude’. First order of business would be to abolish Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech law. Want to write a letter to your rep recommending that? That’s 99% of the battle. Next would be to legislate that all campaign donations must be from the individual to the IRS, breaking the audit trail, then bulk xfers to the FEC for disbursing to viable parties or candidates.

That method is more akin to ‘one man, one vote’ and should find favor with the voters. The prime goal of the Republic Sentry Party is campaign finance reform, as described. Politically, we should stop, right here, and concentrate on CFR until that is accomplished. Otherwise, things can only degrade from here. The lions will continue to fight until the last piece of meat is gone. Then they will look for another piece of meat (or another nation) to satisfy their hunger. IMO.

Roy said: “Reason being, the voter can only vote for/against elected officials in their state. And, the syndrome of ‘the problem is with your rep, not mine’ is strongly embedded in the mindset of many voters.”

That however, is changing rapidly, Roy, with the growth of the Independent voters and the diminishing numbers of Party loyalists.

Roy asked: “Wouldn’t you rather be allowed to vote for/against Congresspersons AND political appointees, Ambassadors, UN reps and the like on a nationwide basis? Would that not be more effective?”

Not just no, but, HELL NO! I have enough of my life’s time spent keeping up with the record of my own representatives, to make an informed choice about them. What you ask for is a professional voter class amongst citizens whose part-time job is tracking the records of most government officials. That IS impossible.

ANOTHER Third Party will have to: 1) get off the ground financially, 2) grab a significant support from independent and other 3rd party supporters, in order to elect a sizable portion of Congressional representatives. Get back to me when your 3rd party has met condition 1, and I will help with condition 2.

Till then, it is just a pipe dream.

Indeed David, a 3rd Party of any kind won’t go anywhere until some folks step up to support such a party. What I really can’t understand is the very attitude you project, ‘if somebody else will pay for it I might join up’. David, you are fortunate that some people liked your VOID idea enough to sign on and pledge some level of support. Same for a 3rd Party, one member at a time.

The Republic Sentry Party is not looking for money. We are looking for people who believe that campaign finance is priority one in reform of government. Looking for ideas, organizational and writing skills, grass roots stuff. Build a base of people and the money thing will take care of itself.

You spend a lot of time blogging, tracking politicos now. I’ve voiced the same about having to watch the politico’s 24/7. The Republic Sentry Party addresses that problem. Each state would have approx eight volunteer members do the tracking/watching for you, along with any interestd party members who wish to point out a perceived wrong. All you will have to do is respond to an email from the Party stating that a vote is required, via Internet, relative to some official/appointee. How hard is that? Not like we are going to be voting on incumbents every day of the week. 20% of state or nationwide voters, as the case may be, must register a complaint before a mandatory vote is held. How often would you get an email? I would think perhaps one or two over a six month period. The idea is to put the fear of rejection into the incumbent rather than ‘throwing them all out’.
And, recall that after CFR is achieved the incumbent will change their focus from the special interest to the voters. That should drop the number of potential rejections dramatically.
Some debate would be nice David, rather than an out of hand rejection. IMO.

Roy, without the money, you can’t reach enough people to get it going.

Speech is free. Communication is very expensive.

Roy, the American people don’t have the time nor the judgement to choose that many people. On an issue like health care, the people do have the time and the judgement to make a decision but, they lack the information to do it. The information needed has not come forth from either political party or their pundits.

CFR does not have to come from a third party. It has to come from the demand of the people and that demand must be strong enough to force one or the other party to make it a duty to the people rather than just a promise on their plank. And, the demand must be developed and come forth from the grass roots because it is like David says, “Speech is free. Communication is very expensive.” You are not going to see Fox News give Ralph Nadar his own show right after the Glen Beck show. You know, fair and balanced.

The Irony, David, is that there is very little love for Corporations or for those Democrats who support them.

Some gridlock in government is inevitable, and a portion of that part of how a deliberative body like Congress works. Not everything is supposed to work out.

But something is.

I’d say drop the duopoly label. It’s got no value to somebody who doesn’t already buy the basic premise, and does little even for the person who does take it seriously to define the problem in any new or interesting way.

DR et al

Its the Democratic Party that is pushing to reform HC. Its the Dems that are trying to takle carbon emmissions. Its the Dems that are attempting to re-regulate the financial industry. Its the Republicans that are trying to prevent these vital reforms. How obvious do you need it to be? Yes the Dems take corporate money. Do you want them to go to a gunfight with just a knife? The Dems also take most union money. Why? The unions would give to any party that supports working people and the Reps love attacking worker protections almost as much as giving tax breaks to rich people. Point is that until we get public finance,that is how the game is played. Which party is doing a better job for America? Its that simple.
You might go down to your party central committee and see what you can do to change things. You will be welcome but don’t expect them to hang on your every word. If you get involved you will also meet a number of politicians. If your experience is like mine you will find that most of them are genuinly trying to do the right thing and are not bad people. Of course I can only speak for the Dems.

DR
We have a decisive issue before us. Throw out incumbants? Wrong approach. Throw out any that do not support the HC reform,Democrat or Republican,progressive or conservative.Forget which major party they are affiliated with.This is a good time to let them know.

Stephen D. said: “The Irony, David, is that there is very little love for Corporations or for those Democrats who support them.”

No, Stephen. That is not the irony. The irony is that they both continue to have power over the entire nation and its future, despite there being little to no love for them. That is ‘ironical’. And your Party has played the gerrymandering game with the worst of Republicans like Tom Delay. And your Party courts the corporate professionals instead of the academics, along side the worst of Republicans. And hence, little changes except for the national debt, and the growing list of increasingly insurmountable challenges to my duaghter’s future in America.

bills, thanks for the partisan hogwash, but, my hog has already been washed recently.

The PUBLIC OPTION is what the majority of Americans expected and demanded of Democrats. They refused to go down the road of democracy choosing instead, political concerns. No moral high ground in that. Your Party is going to give up ground in Nov. regardless of whether the HC reform passes, because, in the end, it won’t be the HC reform the American people expected or demanded.

The scope of the rising health care costs is so huge going forward, so disastrous for our economy and people, that NOTHING short of the Public Option would address it and avert the dire consequences looming. Like Republicans, Democrats have their rhetoric, and then they have their record. The chasm between the two is not quite as wide as for Republicans, but, close.

PayGO? Foggedabottit! Ethical self censure? Fogedabottit! Alternative natural and replenishable energy? Fogedabottit! Political reform? Fogedabottit! All these and more Dem campaign promises which brought them into the majority have fallen by the way side to expedience, political concerns, and corporate lobbyists. They do these reneges because they are easy, not because they are hard. That is the Democratic Party.

I used to be a precinct chair for the Democratic Party some time back. I know the inner workings. I have spent an entire morning and lunch chatting with Bob Krueger about the County’s Democratic Party along side the County Chair. I know what goes on. I know they have their drothers. But, their drothers get lost in the process they refuse to clean up and reform. True of both sides.

The potential for such reforms today is nil. The time for such reforms was 25 years ago when both parties still had moderates who could agree on ideals and long term solutions. That time has passed. Such reforms are no longer possible. And that leaves America’s future very dim, indeed.

Roy said: “The idea is to put the fear of rejection into the incumbent rather than ‘throwing them all out’. “

Throwing them out, is how you put the fear of rejection into them, Roy! They 3/4 of all representatives do not fear rejection because of their gerrymandered districts and use of tax dollars to control the media information about their own reelection, from election day to election day.

All out of context David. The idea is to create a Party, carry out CFR and then monitor for bad eggs via membership oversight for elected officials. That’s way different than a VOID operation. Once CFR is done the politico’s have no choice but to turn to the voter for dialog, support, ideas, in the vein of representation. Just the fact that Party incumbents know they are subject to being rejected for cause would be sufficient, IMO, to keep a number of them clean.

Roy, what is CFR? Congressional Friggin’ Removal?

Correct, David. That’s one unabreviated form. Also, refers to a well used term in the middle column that others might not be aware. Relates to Campaign Finance Reform.
Without CFR, there can be no real representation for the people. And, IMO, the only way to achieve CFR is thru a 3rd party with a different political attitude. I believe CFR and CPR are inversely proportional.

What we really mean when we demand the government do the will of the people is “I expect the government to do what I want because the world revolves around me”.

Schwamp, that is the view of some. Most people acknowledge the fact that their voice is but one of a great many, and most people agree that government decision should reflect the majority - it is called democracy. Most Americans believe in the democratic process for decision making and make it part and parcel of their daily lives in family decision and neighborhood and community decision making.

I should hasten to add, also, that the majority of Americans believe in our Republic, that our representatives ‘should’ be better informed than we, and should make decisions based on the best interests of the public and nation, present and future.

Our American democratic republic is one of the most complex forms of government on Earth, philosophically and in implementation. It comes as no surprise to me that there will always be a minority opposition to any and every proposition put forth by government.

Congress plans to violate the congressional process by getting the HC bill passed without rep’s having to vote on it. In so doing, rep’s can deny they voted for the HC bill. If they do try to pull that off I’m positive the voter’s will turn the dem’s out in 2010 and 2012. Ping-Pong, lesser of two evils, etc.

Otherwise, we have the Corporacratic-Socialist government we deserve.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/14/why-doles-glenn-beck-hate-jesus/

Man, you think we’ve got hearing problems on the site. Check out the above url.

Roy, I suggest your source is an idiot! The process has been used many times by Republicans and a few times by Democrats in the past. Nothing unconstitutional.

Many folks on the RIGHT are too ignorant to recognize the difference between Constitutional law and House or Senate Rules. These rules have precedent, and are not addressed one way or another by the Constitution.

Stop listening to Beck. He is a misinforming idiot entertainer who has no respect for reality or truth, only ratings and money. He is a Limbaugh wannabe who attacks 11 year boys for talking about having lost their Mom, for Pete’s sake. The only people who should listen to Beck are those who keep fact checking his program to counter the enormous misinformation.

Can’t agree David. Beck, generally has the ‘Judge’ Napolitano address Constitutional issues, which he did in the issue we are discussing. Doesn’t make it right that ‘well, the Bushies did it too’ or that some of this crap has been going on for a 100 years or more. That’s the Progressive modus operandi. Incrementally change things, hope nobody complains for 50 years or so and then ‘well, that’s the way we’ve always done it’ to make it ligit. Beck & Co. is doing a good job in making the public aware of such violations
Beck makes the point that our rights come from ‘human rights’ or from the ‘Creator’. The Progressives have worked hard to replace the ‘Creator’ with ‘government’ as the provider of rights.

Article in Wash Post states ‘by calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a ‘cancer’, Beck has achieved lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch.” He and Hannity each draw about 3M viewers each evening. Hannity hit 6M around the ‘tickle me elmo’ event.

I checked out factcheck.org and didn’t see anything about Beck that caused me to reflect. I continue to watch for blunders but have found little to argue with. A good history lesson IMO. For instance, Thomas Paine was secular until he went to France during the revolution, nearly got himself killed, and returning with a different attitude on religion. And, in the Jefferson memorial his writings immortalized on the ceiling state ‘in God the Creator’ or something to that effect. The Progressives have had it too good too long, IMO. Time to trash this ‘anything goes’ democracy and buck up the Republic with a little Federalism, IMO.

DR
Please. Why is supporting people that support a proposal that you support “hogwash”/ Seems common sense to me.
BTW, The public option is not dead. There is a chance. There are many pushing for an up or down vote in the House. It would carry a majority in the Senate.Of course,if it is not included there is the possibility of adding it later but not if simplistic boneheads vote out the people that support it now.

Regarding the ceiling writings in Jefferson memorial. The interior walls are engraved with passages from Jefferson’s writings. Most prominent are the words which are inscribed in a frieze below the dome: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” This sentence is taken from a September 23, 1800, letter by Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush wherein he defends the constitutional refusal to recognize a state religion.
On the panel of the northwest interior wall is an excerpt from “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1777”, except for the last sentence, which is taken from a letter of August 28, 1789, to James Madison:[citation needed]
Almighty God hath created the mind free…All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.
The final sentence is from a letter of January 4, 1786, to George Washington:[citation needed]
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.
The inscription on the panel of the southeast interior wall is redacted and excerpted from a letter July 12, 1816, to Samuel Kercheval:[citation needed]
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
This last one is interesting in that he realizes change is inevitable but he doesn’t suggest trashing the Constitution to facilitate change.

Bills, ‘adding it later’ sounds a little like progressive incrementalism, IMO.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/37989/

Warning! This is a Beck url, Progressives and small children may not want to partake.

Check out Schumer working the system. Beck doesn’t have anything to do with it - the tape is talking, not Beck.

Roy said: “making the public aware of such violations”

Except that they are only violations in the fantasies of conservatives like Beck. They weren’t violations when Republicans used them. That double standard is no standard at all, and why there can be no litigation with standing against Democrats for using these methods as called for by that idiot Michelle Bachmann and her blind followers.

Roy said: “Beck makes the point that our rights come from ‘human rights’ or from the ‘Creator’. The Progressives have worked hard to replace the ‘Creator’ with ‘government’ as the provider of rights.”

Thank you for proving my point about Beck being an idiot! Human rights are defined by law. Creator’s rights are defined by the Clergy of a religious organization. There is no evidence in this world that God has spoken to ANY PERSON to advise them of what God’s Rights, are.

If God enforced rights, he would not permit serial killers to go free for decades or forever without being caught. When one has to resort to religious beliefs to defend political rhetoric, one has lost the debate about law from the starting gate. We are a nation of laws, not religious edicts fashioned by some clergy past or present.

Beck is an idiot regarding law, who plays to people’s passions and beliefs FOR HIS OWN PROFIT, instead of their education and objective and rational minds for the benefit of the nation and its people. Which is why he is an entertainer, not an elected official.

bills asked: “Why is supporting people that support a proposal that you support “hogwash”/”

Because those people support and maintain a corrupt political system which corrupts our government and our nation’s future. That’s why.

DR
There,I vented.

Paygo did pass. It does not go in to effect until 2011 fiscal year. Its pretty dicey to even put it in place then. With the economy in a liquidity trap, making paygo work may require very large tax increases on the wealthy to maintain the needed government stimulus injections. Some increase is good but too much would be counter productive economically. In the situtation that the US and much of the industrial world is in,the normal rules of economic prudence are a road to disaster.
I am sorry you gave up too soon in your party involvement. Its hard and often frustrating work. Change does happen. It was the work of many people that did NOT give up that changed the Dems from the segregation party. It was the work of people that did NOT give up that changed the Dems from the war party. It was people that did NOT give up that helped put BHO in office. Undermining the work of many to effect the reforms you seek is counter productive.How about performming due dilegence and finding out the positions of those running for office and supporting those with the same goals?

Roy

What is “progressive incrementalism”? Why do you say it like it was a bad thing?

Living overseas has the advantage of not being subjected to Beck,Limbaugh or even Fox propaganda.I suppose I could I could chase it online but I am not the big a glutton for punishment.

Progressive as in Chuck Schumer’s ideology. Or, covert socialism IMO. Incrementalism, as in their mode of operandi. Progressives will, incrementally and over long periods of time, push their agenda. Through deception and incremental changes they have been able to accomplish much of their long range agenda. I don’t like to read political stuff either but, the url, in a brief para explains the Progressive approach for the time period Obama has been in office.

Roy, if there is a progressive agenda being adopted over the long term, it occurs ONLY with the consent and approval of the majority of Americans. Every so often, voters give conservatives the benefit of the doubt, and end up every time, recoiling from the experience a couple elections down that road, and returning to the progressive path.

That is history. And you, Roy, benefit from it along with the rest of Americans. Like it, or, not.

Disagree David. It occurs ONLY with the ping-ponging of the electorate between the perceived lesser of two evils.

But, their are Progressives in both parties so it’s not like you can vote them out. They are determined to have their, albeit incrementally. Constantly trying to rewrite history. To include the black and hispanic history they say but their works go more toward trying to portray the Founder’s as being opposed to religion. Their goal, IMO is to be there at the end to pry us away from clinging to our guns, our religion and the Constitution.
That’s why a new 3rd Party ‘with a different political attitude’ is so badly needed. Give the folks something other than the left or right to vote for. A party to take the corporation out of corporations and correct some of the Progressive agenda they have incrementally put in place over the last 100 years. To include downsizing DC in accordance with the Constitution and what the Founder’s intended for the federal government.

The first group of radical progressives in our history are called Founding Fathers. Although they had to make compromises to protect conservative interests to get it done, they produced documents which brought a new form of government, government by the people.

Since that time many have continued to fight for the progress of man. It has not been easy; mistakes have been made; and much blood has been shed, both for and in opposition to progress.

Progress, IMO is not trying to convince the people that in just over 250 years Christ has gone from being a plus to a negative in our national status. Ergo, rights no longer come from God the Creator, but from big gov.
Beck made a good point this PM. The last sentence of the Decl of Indp. Reads —And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Yet, we have these weasels in Congress who wants to Deem to Pass the HC bill so that how they would have voted on the bill will not be known to the public. Here this Dem House started out with something like 268 members, couldn’t get the bill pushed thru, being in control of the House and Senate. Now they are down to 216 and couldn’t find 60 votes, then couldn’t find 51 votes so now they will just ‘deem’ it passed and have the Pres. sign it.
Ben Franklin said if they were to be hanged they should all be hanged together. Not one person that even comes close to being a Statesperson in this sorry bunch of legislators. Come to think of it, haven’t seen one in my lifetime. lMichael Moore says the HC bill is rotten to the core but he will vote for the Dems in 2010 anyway.
From wiki:
Social progressivism is the view that the basic concepts of social mores, human nature, and morality are not fixed throughout history and should be revised as new scientific knowledge becomes available. The term is most commonly associated with an international political movement on basis of this view. Particularly in developed countries, social progressives are secularists, and believe that science and secular philosophy have discredited most traditional beliefs to the point where they no longer hold any inherent value. Thus, all current interpersonal social constructs, such as marriage, the family, monogamy and gender roles and gender identity, must be legally challenged whenever such a change is deemed to be for the greater good of society or is desired by those who wish to engage a social arrangement not currently sanctioned by law. They are generally averse to inequality in all of its forms, and seek to institute egalitarian norms. They are opposed by social conservatives on grounds of positive vs negative liberties.
In other words if the Creator doesn’t exist then where do our rights come from? Has to come from the government. If that were so the Constitution is meaningless, totally. Or, as Pres. Bush is quoted in one of the url’s I posted above, the Constitution ‘is just a piece of paper”. If the government can claim the rights bequeathed by the Constitution along with the rights given us by the Creator then the government ends up with all the rights, plus any more they can dream up. Sounds like utopia to me. I’d like cream on my strawberries, plz.

Roy said: “Progress, IMO is not trying to convince the people that in just over 250 years Christ has gone from being a plus to a negative in our national status.

Roy, Christ is not mentioned ONCE in our founding documents. I think a history book not approved by the Texas School Board is called for.

And America has never seen more Christians in its society than it does today. Simple fact of numbers. Your belief is entirely unfounded and contradicted by reality.

Roy,
Yes asked “if the Creator doesn’t exist then where do our rights come from?” Well, who gave you Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge?

David,
Why I like your title I do believe Americans have at least one other choice in their arsenal. For why I suppose it it to much of a Leap of Faith to believe the Media would learn the Proper Questions to ask the Candidates and Incumbents of the 2010 Elections. I do hope that average Americans can and will ask Their Candidates and Incumbents how electing them will bring about the Better World all Humans seek.

Or does it actually take a Political Enitity that can take both Labor and Management on at the same time to get the undivided attention of the Charlatans and Vagabonds of Washington by the Short Hairs to listen to Common Knowledge and Common Sense.

Roy
There are 9 states where insurance carriers are allowed to deny coverage to women because they have been victums of domestic violence. They are also allowed to charge higher rates for women that have a prexisting conditions, like a history of complicated pregnancies. If getting rid of these practices is “progressive incrementalism” then I say bring it on.

DR
The Democrats stand accused of good governance. There is lots of nail biting going on in waiting for the final CBO report. The report MUST show an impact of the reconcilliation bill to reduce the deficit not only over the next ten years but 20 years. The Dems are working to meet that goal. What was the Rep approach to the same requirement for reconcilliation? Bush threatened to fire the CBO director if he went public with the results.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/why-delay-good-if-frustrating
.

Henry, while I am a creature of God that is not the point. Point is some folks came to the ‘new world’ and set up a government that for the first time in the history of mankind gave people freedom, liberty and such.
Now, a coupla hundred years later some folks want to incrementally change that government, make it all powerful, the provider of all rights, vote themselves a pay raise, etc. I don’t think that will fit well with the major populace.

Bills, rather than incrementally corrupting the Constitution to fulfill our needs why not do so in accordance with the Constitution? If people want HC, which is not a right, they should pay for it. If they don’t have a way of paying for it then the community at large, including local and state governments should work with the unemployed to change their status. One tried and proven method is to not allow monopolies by breaking up corporations. This allows competition and creates jobs.

But, Houston we have a problem. We have incrementally abused government to the point where its pretty much anything goes. Heck, who needs to vote on a HC care bill, let’s just declare it done and get on with it, etc. We all agree we now have the best money government can buy. Indeed, instead of breaking up the monopolies, government has worked to create them, causing major unemployment and resulting problems for the middle class and poor. Instead of acknowledging our government is unlike the government of other nations the government has decided they will join with all the governments of the world to stress peace and efficiency. I suppose some would say it has worked really swell. Or, if we just stay at it, it’s sure to work out down the road. The government has divested the wealth of the middle class and the wealth of future generations into the works, even piling on several millions of illegal cheap labor workers which has exacerbated problems for those looking to buy HC.
We are on the precipice for sure. Change the government to a Democratic-Socialist government where all rights are controlled by that government or, return to a government more in tune to what the original Founder’s intended.
A prolonged battle that is just now heating up, IMO.

Bills, if you are willing to accept an ‘anything goes’ government in exchange for a HC plan what does that say about the folks who put it all on the line in the revolutionary war and following wars?