Third Party & Independents Archives

Anatomy Of A New Third Party

People are becoming more frustrated with their government as time passes. Most believe, as I do, that a third party, as we know it, is not seen as a viable solution. But, what about a party with a different political attitude? Here is an attempt to flesh out a radically different 3rd party.

Some would say government has grown too large to manage. Some would allude that cultural and ethical differences are too great to overcome. Some will espouse those, and similar excuses even as they realize the real outlier is the special interest money influence in government. Many retiring elected officials readily admit that the money influence is causing great problems within government.

The money influence comes primarily from owners/stakeholders of large corporations in their quest to influence government policy. A natural phenomena to which we would all engage if we had the wealth, IMO. Their influence is so strong as to give us government by Corpocracy, permeating every facet of government.

Therefore, the solution to most of our problems with government comes down to 'how to remove the money influence' from government. I can embrace two methods: one, using Article V Convention (AVC) as a means of reform and, two, fighting fire with fire by standing up a new third political party. Unfortunately, the path to AVC, a constitutional right being denied, is blocked by congress and the courts.

Thus, we are left with fighting fire with fire. But, I would be the last person to suggest we stand up just another 3rd party such as the third parties currently vying for public favor. A party capable of bringing reform must be able to address accountability for party leadership and those party members elected to government office. Also, such a party must be founded with rules in place to prevent the party from ever being co-opted by special interest/money influence.

In addressing accountability we would need rules that provide for rejecting elected officials from the party by membership vote. This party would install volunteer watchdogs in each state with the purpose of keeping their antenna up for ethical or performance violations relative to party rules.

Here are a few simple rules that would, when properly enforced, accomplish the above objectives. Prior to the founding of the party these rules would be subject to debate and modification. Post-founding the rules could only be changed by a 66% favorable vote by the membership to do so.

1. Members must sign s pledge affirming their support for the party agenda and rules set forth.

2. Members will cast their votes relating to party business via the Internet on the party's website(s).

3. To change, add, or delete a party rule requires a two-thirds approval by the membership, based on the total votes cast.

4. If 15% percent of members, local or national party as the case may be, submit a complaint against a party member a vote to clear or terminate must be held. All complaints must be posted, in a cumulative manner, on the Party's website within 8 hours of receipt. (This will be a pro-forma process).

5. Pursuant to Rule #4, a party member who holds an official Party position, or position of U.S. Senator, U.S. House of Representatives, Cabinet Head, Supreme Court Justice, Czar Appointee, Political Appointee, Ambassador, Vice President, and President, must enjoy an approval rating of two-thirds of the total votes cast by the national party membership. Otherwise, his/her party affiliation will be terminated with no further support for current or future political endeavors.

6. Pursuant to Rule #4, a party member elected to a State office must enjoy a two-thirds approval rating, based on the total votes cast by that States party membership. Otherwise, his/her party affiliation will be terminated with no further support for current or future political endeavors. Members serving in the position of U.S. Senator or U.S. House of Representatives are excluded as these positions are included under rule #5 covering the federal or national sector of government.

By invoking these few rules at the founding of the party we can stop, or severely limit the money influence in politics. Enforcing these rules will require a strong communications base, primarily using the Internet and SKYPE or similar media tools. Watchdog volunteers can monitor for infractions and a strong communications base will provide balance, a way for incumbents to defend their positions and get their message before the membership.

Having observed Convention USA trying to get its organization off the ground using the Internet for communications/debate, it is clear that this would take some time and won't be an easy task to accomplish.

The cost to manage/operate such a party could be held in check by using volunteer support where possible. By giving members an oversight function along with strong interaction between incumbents and members should work to the success and growth of the party. Additional support would be gained through installing six to eight watchdog volunteers in each state.

As to how the party might function lets assume a Senator in the US congress from Kentucky receives a flurry of complaints to the website, alluding that the Senator has proposed legislation that is incongruent with the posted party agenda. Computers tally the pro-forma complaints and if 15% of the membership has complained then, at a later date, the senator will be subjected to a follow-on up/down vote. If the senator fails to garner 66% favorable vote he/she is rejected from the party. The senator can certainly serve out the remainder of his term, perhaps run again under another party, but will no receive support for any future political endeavor.

Note that a US senator of this party would be subject to vote by the national membership, whereas, a state senator would be subject to a vote by that state's membership. Rational is that a US senator has the authority to expend revenue collected on a national basis and is, thereby, accountable to voters nationwide.

In defending his/her action the Senator can take to the website airwaves, addressing the complaints at length through website media and may convince the membership that his/her proposal is the better approach, thereby, winning 2/3rds of the votes to his/her favor.

At founding the party agenda would include two primary objectives: one, to abolish corporate personhood law and, two, implement REAL campaign finance reform. (topics for another article). Certainly, the party would have to address all issues but these two would be primary and elected officials from this party would have to advocate for the accomplishment of the party agenda as posted or suffer the consequences of membership oversight.

By abolishing corporate personhood law and achieving REAL campaign finance reform we can remove the money influence from politics and government, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at August 5, 2012 9:08 PM
Comments
Comment #350092

Roy, once again you fail to grasp something very basic…

The problem with politics is NOT money. It is power. If the power weren’t there to be wielded, there would be no money trying to influence people.

‘Corporate Personhood’ isn’t the boogyman you try to make it out to be. Simply stated, all corporate personhood is is a way to allow a company to operate as an individual through the law (like sign contracts). Instead of having to redo every single legal agreement every time the ownership changed in a company, allowing the company to exist as that individual entity makes running a business much easier.

Of course, you appear to be one of the many who buy the nonsense that Citizens United was about ‘corporate personhood’, when it wasn’t. It was about individual’s free speech. Unfortunately, in your zeal to eliminate ‘money’ from campaigns, you are willing to squash the free speech of individuals to do so. Which is a shame.

Focus on the real problem and not what you’ve been led to believe is the problem. Then you might find yourself fighting on the right side of the issue, instead of turning your ire on ‘corporations’, which are just groups of individuals trying to run a business…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 6, 2012 3:27 AM
Comment #350217

Rhinehold, by abolishing CP, removing the falsity that corporations are human, we can then proceed to regulate corporation funding for politics and begin to implement REAL CFR. Corporate lobbying is a $3.5B operation. One can plug up all their orifices and pretend that corporations don’t get even one vote while the individual does. But, it’s just that, pretending.

The following url’s are useful in helping the reader come to terms with Corporate Personhood, IMO.

http://prospect.org/article/dont-blame-corporate-personhood

From Wiki: “”Super PACs”: The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed the “super PAC”. They are officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees,” because they may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but rather must do any political spending independently of the campaigns. Provided they are operated correctly, they can raise funds from corporations, unions and other groups, and from individuals, without legal limits.[27] Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. First, in January 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held inCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditure for political purposes. Two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited in the size and source of contributions to the group.”

More than a few folks want CP abolished and the money influence associated with corporations removed.

http://www.pfaw.org/issues/government-the-people/citizens-united-v-fec-constitutional-remedies-list-of-local-state-and-f

A discussion on Corporate Personhood from another blog which is informative:

http://truthonthemarket.com/2011/11/06/abolishing-corporate-personhood/

This url suggests that corporate owners have been moving away from Corporate Personhood law for some time.

http://proxyexchange.org/2011/10/1242/


FEC rulings:

§ 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks,
corporations, or labor organizations
(a) It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized
by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure
in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection
with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any
labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection
with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or
a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner
to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of
the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other
person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this
section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national
bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution
or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization,
as the case may be, prohibited by this section..”

By taking narrow interpretations on free speech, voting and similar we would never be able to reform gov’t. We are going to need Article V Convention or a new 3rd party to achieve any REAL reform in any quarter, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 7, 2012 8:17 PM
Comment #350243

Hey Roy Ellis, I’m not sure if I am able to post here. I am giving it a try.
TNX, Roy Ellis

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 8, 2012 3:46 AM
Comment #350244

What do you think would happen if we elected a President that was committed to exposing the transgressions committed by our government after Woodrow Wilson was elected President?

TNX, Roy Ellis, again.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 8, 2012 3:54 AM
Comment #350245

Can we honestly expect the rest of the world to ignore our transgessions as we do? Experts around the world have gone on record stating the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition.

My father doesn’t say our government wouldn’t do this. My father says he refuses to believe our government could do this.

There’s a big difference.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 8, 2012 4:16 AM
Comment #350246

Think about it.

Both the 16th and the 17th amemdments were ratified in the same year.

The Federal Reserve Bank was created in the same year.


1913.

Progress? Or, Coup d’état!

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 8, 2012 5:14 AM
Comment #350257

WW, I agree, so many things wrong, so little time (in our lifetimes) to set them right.

In a nutshell, as the population grew so did everything else. Changes were necessary but we could argue to this day that changes to the Constitution were not necessary, even harmful. In 1913 taxation started out at 1% and the entire tax code was about 400 pages and has grown to something like 66k pages.

The tax code is one thing that could easily be straightened out through a flat tax, no deductions, fixed at some percent, maybe 15-17%, something like that.

Then there is the 17th, and Citizens United and so on - - -

But, it is simply impossible for a Presidential candidate picked from the duopoly/corpocracy to tackle any real reform. No president could act with such boldness as Wilson, Roosevelt and a couple of others in these Corporcratic times.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/04/15/82520-einstein-neuman-agree-taxes-better-before-1913/

WW, have you heard anything on the citizen’s law suit against federal officials that the Attny Gen is sitting on? I really don’t think we will hear from him on that subject.

No matter our problems, the solution remains - - a 3rd party is preferable, more efficient, or Article V Convention.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 8, 2012 1:57 PM
Comment #350378

Roy, I’m sorry but you have conflagrated two different issues into the same thing… Let me start by making some statements of facts:

1) Citizens United was not about ‘corporate personhood’, it as about whether or not individuals lost their right to free speech just because they exercised that speech in a group (corporation).

2) Corporations are STILL not allowed to donate funds directly to a candidate.

Any attempt you have to ‘reform government’ MUST respect the rights of those you disagree with. Citizens United wanted nothing more than to air a documentary that they put together about Hillary Clinton. They created a corporation for the many reasons that one might do so, so simply because they took on that designation you assume they should lose their free speech rights?

If people are unable to pool their funds to make political speech heard, only the richest of us will be able to enjoy free speech, and I don’t think that would go well to ‘reform government’.

Without Citizens United, the government could have limited the speech rights of the NAACP, Sierra Club, NY Times, DNC, etc. All of them corporations, created as corporations exactly to be treated as a ‘person’ while signing contracts.

This notion that corporations have all the same rights as individuals is ignorant and not based in any fact, I’m sorry. It doesn’t matter how many blog posts you find that says the same thing you say, the reality is just not there to back it up. For example, had the corporation ‘earned’ the same rights as individuals, then they would not be prohibited from donating directly to candidates. But they are prohibited from doing that, and that was upheld by Citizens United…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2012 2:31 PM
Comment #350399

Rhinehold, from a legal perspective I agree, corporations can’t donate directly to a candidate. One only need follow the money to see how corporations are the beneficiaries of money donated by corporate owners/employees.

Take a company that makes donuts. The owner of this company donates to candidate ‘a’. By checking around we find candidate ‘a’ is sponsoring a bill that would benefit donut manufacturers. Then we find that the owners/employees of several other donut manufacturers have also donated to candidate ‘a’. Ends up with the donut mfctr’s contributing $100M to candidate ‘a’ and the public at large contributing $75. One can easily see the problem.

But, the courts are seemingly unable to find a solution. They keep toying with free speech, money is free speech and so on, as if nothing can be done. They keep trying to build on the pile of crap they created in 1886. Therefore, we the people must find the solution and that means we will need a new 3rd party with a different political attitude. Corporations existed before 1886 and I’m sure new laws can be put in place so as not to make it too hard on corporate owners.

“Only American citizens and immigrants with green cards can contribute to federal politics, but the American divisions of foreign companies can form PACs and collect contributions from their American employees.During the current election cycle, foreign-connected groups and businesses have contributed about $5.38 million to PACs and super PACs.
Source; Federal Election Commission, Center for Responsive Politics, Texas Tribune, Factcheck.org”

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 9, 2012 5:19 PM
Comment #350407

Rhinehold, nothing in the Constitution said about money being the equivalent of free speech. Nothing about political parties, nothing about ‘corporations’ or ‘group rights’. Seems the courts needed to facilitate ‘group rights’ with their ‘money is free speech’ ruling. Guess the idea of money as free speech never came up until those with ‘group rights’ wanted to pool their money.

Most folks recognizes ‘one person, one vote’ as a standard bearer for liberty, freedom. Most folks recognize that a ‘group’ is a conspiracy by it’s very nature. Most folks prefer ‘individual rights’ as ‘group rights’ will trump your individual rights every time.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 9, 2012 5:56 PM
Comment #350435
Rhinehold, nothing in the Constitution said about money being the equivalent of free speech

It doesn’t say anything about a right to privacy either, but we have that… Have you read the 9th amendment?

Nothing about political parties, nothing about ‘corporations’ or ‘group rights’.

Again, we aren’t talking about ‘group rights’ with Citizen’s United, it was the idea of individual rights not being lost just because you act within a group.

Most folks recognize that a ‘group’ is a conspiracy by it’s very nature.

SO, are you suggesting we outlaw the NAACP, ACLU, Sierra Club, NRA, etc? Then all you will have, if you believe that money=votes which you apparently do, is the rich among us ruling the country. I thought that was what you were against?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2012 12:33 AM
Comment #350446

Rhinehold, you seem to hold it an impossibility to remove the influence of money from politics/gov’t.

It would seem that since states created corporations they could regulate/define how they operate.

I know more tautology won’t change your position but, just for the record:

From today’s WaPo: “Conservative groups spend big against Ohio Senator.” The article relates that in July the CofC launched ads critical of the Ohio senator. That was followed by a slate of ads by a non-profit group, Crossroads GPS. These conservative groups, led by the business-friendly chamber have spent $11.5M, more than 2x as much as the competitor candidate has spent. The CofC has vowed to spend much more and Crossroads GPS says they have another $6.7M in reserve for the final five weeks.

Non-profit groups don’t have to reveal their donors and can’t coordinate with candidates or party. But, they do coordinate amongst themselves. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell hosts who runs Crossroads, hosts a monthly meeting of working groups. There are biweekly meetings of a smaller group of the most influential players. The Chamber and Xroads do most of the big ads. Americans for Prosperity (Koch brothers) does much of the polling, hosts focus groups and runs grass-roots work at the state level and shares info with the other two groups. Senator John Cornyn says “I’m one who happens to believe more speech and more information about the candidates and the issues is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

This time around the Chamber is siding with the Republicans, hasn’t endorsed a single Democrat. According to Senator Schumer “ they basically have become an arm of the Republican Party, and that’s not good for the businesses they represent -.”

Senator Brown thinks the funding effort is coming from “a few billionaires, it could be Exxon. I assume, because of my record , it’s Wall St banks, I assume it’s Exxon and other oil interests -. It makes some people think, ‘if I vote on this amendment, man they/re coming after me -’.”

Another pertinent article: “FTC: Fine sends a message to Google.” Google agreed to pay a $22.5M penalty, the largest ever levied by the FTC. “In a call with reporters, FTC officials said the agency did not want to impose a fine that would “cripple” a legitimate company. Instead, the FTC wanted to send a message to Google and others that it would not tolerate flagrant disregard for the settlements the agency negotiates.”

One FTC Commissioner objected, saying that allowing Google to settle without admission of guilt was “inexplicable”, stating that “while some may say the denial is justified by the historic penalty, the fine is a “de minimis amount of Google’s profit or revenues-.” In response the other four commissioner’s said that “almost any penalty can be dismissed as insufficient” for a company of Google’s size.

To belaboure the point somewhat; “N.Y’s attack on British bank blindsides Fed and Treasury.” NY banking regulator “blindsided” the FED and Treasury in launching an investigation on Standard Chartered regarding over $250B in money-laundering transactions.

Sources say that by going it alone the regulator has sullied the waters between Treasury and the Standard Chartered. “His actions, which included releasing embarrassing communications and details of the bank’s alleged defiance of U.S. sanctions, is rewriting the book on how foreign banks settle cases involving the processing of shadowy funds tied to countries that are the targets of sanctions. Such cases have usually been settled through negotiated settlements with public shaming kept to a minimum.”

The regulator’s order stated that the bank exposed the US banking system to terrorists, drug traffickers and corrupt sales. The noise made by federal officials may provide ammunition for bank to claim “new and over-zealous” regulation. The threat to revoke the banks state license wiped out $17B off the banks market value on Tuesday.

Takeaway is this:

After the ink is dry it is ‘tautology’, IMO

That a very few people can group up and exercise undue influence over elections/gov’t.

That such actions can be taken without revealing the identity of those pulling the strings.

That corporations become ‘too big to fail’.

Folks pulling the strings behind corporations are seldom accountable for corporate crime.

Corporations suffer a relatively small fine without admitting any guilt for their crimes. .

Corporations seldom ‘die’, living on to ‘group’ up, monopolize, conglomerate in their quest to control, influence, become too big to fail.

How many times has Goldman Sachs been fined?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-charges-against-goldman-sachs/

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. “
Thomas Jefferson – 1802

Rhinehold, curious as to your position on money in politics and proffer a solution if you will.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 10, 2012 12:54 PM
Comment #350449
Rhinehold, you seem to hold it an impossibility to remove the influence of money from politics/gov’t.

No, only that you can’t do it by limiting the free speech rights of individuals. I’ve already explained that the only way to remove the desire for control of power is to remove the power from the government that we’ve given it these past century.

It would seem that since states created corporations they could regulate/define how they operate.

Yes, as long as the states are not violating the first amendment rights (or any other rights) of anyone, even those you disagree with, then they can.

The article relates that in July the CofC launched ads critical of the Ohio senator. That was followed by a slate of ads by a non-profit group, Crossroads GPS. These conservative groups, led by the business-friendly chamber have spent $11.5M, more than 2x as much as the competitor candidate has spent. The CofC has vowed to spend much more and Crossroads GPS says they have another $6.7M in reserve for the final five weeks.

And they have every right to voice their opinion on the performance of the Ohio senator, that is their right as American Citizens. We should not be for limiting rights just because we don’t like what they say or how they say it. I get that you have this belief that if someone says something that it will automatically convert into votes, but ask yourself, do they sway you? If the ads don’t sway you, then they are not ‘automatic’.

But, they do coordinate amongst themselves.

You mean private citizens are freely associating with other private citizens? The horror. As you said, they are not able to work in coordination with a campaign or donate directly to a campaign, and trust me if there were any proof they were, they would be made an example of, so great pains are taken to ensure that they don’t do that.

This time around the Chamber is siding with the Republicans, hasn’t endorsed a single Democrat. According to Senator Schumer “ they basically have become an arm of the Republican Party, and that’s not good for the businesses they represent -.”

And his opinion is ‘irrelevant’. The NAACP doesn’t often side with Democrats, the same with AFLCIO, yet both of them are ‘corporations’ and some would argue are the ‘arm of the democratic party, and that’s not good for the members they represent’. It depends on how you see things. That is why we have the right to free speech so that no one is disenfranchised.

As was said by once “I’ve never heard of an idea so dangerous that it couldn’t be talked about”.

That corporations become ‘too big to fail’.

That is not something I agree with and is not part of the discussion. It is also not limited to corporations.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. “ Thomas Jefferson – 1802

Rhinehold, curious as to your position on money in politics and proffer a solution if you will.

The FED should be done away with and the power that money covets should not exist in our society. Without that power that money is trying to obtain, there would be no reason for those with money to seek control of it.

It’s a simple solution, one that our Founding Fathers intended for us.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2012 1:14 PM
Comment #350466


Rhinehold, voting is one small part of the need to abolish CP. And, no, I don’t believe ads ‘automatically’ effect the vote. But, I do put some emphasis on the fact that corporations spend some billions yearly on political ads. One must assume the ads are effective to some degree.

Ron Paul, while he doesn’t believe corporations should have certain rights of ‘personhood’, has never said he favors abolishment of CP as a solution. “Confronted by Think Progress reporter Scott Keyes, who asked Paul what he thought of the remark, the Texas Congressman replied: “Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.”

Some words, by Bill Moyers, on the book, “Corporations Are Not People”, “This is the first practical guide for every citizen on the problem of corporate personhood and the tools we have to overturn it. Jeff Clements explains why the Citizen’s United case is the final win in a campaign for corporate domination of the state that began in the 1970s under Richard Nixon. More than this, Clements shows how unfettered corporate rights will impact public health, energy policy, the environment, and the justice system. Where Thom Hartmann’s Unequal Protection provides a much-needed detailed legal history of corporate personhood, Corporations Are Not People answers the reader’s question: “What does Citizens United mean to me?” And, even more important, it provides a solution: a Constitutional amendment, included in the book, which would reverse Citizens United. The book’s ultimate goal is to give every citizen the tools and talking points to overturn corporate personhood state by state, community by community with petitions, house party kits, draft letters, shareholder resolutions, and much more.”

http://valleyreporter.com/index.php/en/news/myview/377-where-liberals-and-conservatives-can-agree-corporations-are-not-people-neither-are-robots

http://movetoamend.org/press-release/vermont-legislature-calls-constitutional-amendment-end-corporate-personhood-and

http://www.movetoamend.org/why-abolish-all-corporate-constitutional-rights

http://www.movetoamend.org/move-amend%E2%80%99s-justino-replies-posed-questions

The Move To Amend proposal amendment provides a caveat for protecting free speech of the news media corporate.

http://movetoamend.org/amendment

http://movetoamend.org/other-amendments

This last url provides comparison info between known similar amendments.

I tend to agree that the monetary system should be reformed. Why can the FED not be audited? Is it the ‘personhood’ thing again? Bernake is claiming that the FED being a federal agency

http://www.infowars.com/audit-the-fed-threatens-the-secrecy-of-the-federal-reserve-bank/

Excerpts from the above url:
Back in March, Bernanke lectured at the George Washington University in a propaganda stuntto reaffirm to the younger generations that the Federal Reserve is necessary and integral to the US monetary future. Bernanke claimed that “a central bank is not an ordinary commercial bank, but a government agency.”

Because of the central banking cartel’s takeover of the American people in 1913 with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act; which led to the monetary enslavement we are witnessing today as well as the transformation of America from a Constitutional Republic into a nation of serfs who are tied to the conspiratorial endeavors of the global Elite.

We seem to be further along toward abolishing CP than the FED. I do see your point of view on CP but, IMO, a corporation remains an artificial entity and as such should not have any ‘personhood’ rights attached. Corporations worked well before CP and will do so post-CP.

Otherwise, - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 10, 2012 6:54 PM
Comment #351416

A whopping 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200+ come from a miniscule 0.3% of the weatlhiest contributors.
So, 99.7% of all eligible 200 million voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters.

Also, 90% of elections are won by the candidate the spends the most on their election campaign.

Therefore, government is FOR-SALE.
Money buys influence, media coverage, supporters, etc., and elections.

However, the voters could change that, IF enough voters had enough smarts to see through the lies, and the motivation to adequately research the candidates and their records.
But, too few voters will do that.

Therefore, ignorance and excessive selfishness reigns, and the majority of voters have what they deserve.
Therefore, the primary problem is the majority of voters.

There are simply too many voters who belong to these two worthless extremes, who continue to take turns at abusing power, until things eventually deteriorate beyond repair:

  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, little (if any) government regulations, and freedom to explore and wallow in almost every manifestation of unchecked greed.
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government (by design); with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged and plundered) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; tries to disguise envy and jealousy as demands for equality; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

That is, at any rate, the majority voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , at least perhaps, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, incompetent, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2012 11:40 AM
Post a comment