Retained by the People: Making the Case for Participatory Democracy

If the 2008 election cycle has proven anything it is that representative democracy DOES NOT WORK.  This is the system that was created by the Founders and is laid out in the Constitution.  In a representative democracy the only real accessible way to have any effect on government is by voting.  The decisions as to what laws and regulations are passed, what government and judicial appointments are approved, even the decision to go to war is not in your hands.  It is in the hands of politicians; NOT YOURS.

Every four years we see the Rock the Voters coming out to tell us that “voting is power.”  I hate to break this to you, but voting is not power.  Power is disenfranchising 18 million people by giving a party’s nomination to a candidate who didn’t earn it.  Power is taking delegates from one candidate and giving them to another.  Power is using sexism and misogyny to beat down candidates for public office without any repercussions.  Power is threatening delegates into participating in a rigged roll call vote.  Power is telling telecom companies that they are off the hook for helping the President violate the Constitution by tapping the phones of every citizen in the United States without a warrant.  Power is being able to bankrupt and crash the most powerful economy on the planet and making money while you do it.  That is power in America as we have allowed it to be exercised.

Yes, we can decide which political parties will control our nation’s agenda with our votes, but beyond that our vote empowers us with nothing.  Did our votes stop the invasion of Iraq?  Did our votes stop Bush from tapping your phones without a warrant?  Did our votes stop the Congress from passing the economic rescue bill, granting Treasury Secretary Paulson the power to hand out $700 billion of your tax dollars to anyone he likes, for any reason?  Did our votes keep the Supreme Court from giving approval to the Secretary of State of Ohio to allow voter registration and voter fraud to be committed in her state?  No, no, no, and no.  Our vote gives us virtually no power over our government at all.  It gives us no veto power.  It gives us no oversight power.  It gives us virtually nothing.  But the Constitution does give us something.  It gives us a lot actually.  We just haven’t been using the Founders’ gifts well.  In fact, I would argue we have never used them at all.  What are these gifts?  The powers to shape and run this republic of ours.  It is the power to have direct democratic control over our elected officials.  Our birthright is that we have the indefeasible right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  It is also that we are permitted to live in a republic where the government doesn’t work against those rights.  The Constitution gives us the means.  We have failed to utilize them.  Where do we find these tools?  In the Bill of Rights.

Amendment IX:     

 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The power to create citizen based political bodies with direct oversight of all our elected officials, and their appointees, is not granted by word in the Constitution.  But Amendment 9 makes it clear that the right to do so cannot be denied as it is a right “retained by the people.”  The power to create such bodies has not been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is it prohibited by it to the states.  Therefore, according to Amendment 10 the states, or the people, have the right to do so.  States also have the right to amend the Constitution.

 

We have the unalienable human right to be governed by bodies that must adhere to our will.  The Constitution of the United States gives us the means.  If we do not exercise our god(dess) given, and constitutionally guaranteed rights to make our republic a participatory democracy then we have no one but ourselves to blame when the federal government, and political parties, continue to act against our desires and our interests, period.  

To whom can we credit with the real substantive changes that have taken place in America?  Who got women the right to vote?  The people.  Who demanded the passage of the Civil Rights Act?  The people.  Who was the conscience of the nation that helped end the Vietnam War?  The people.  If we had a participatory democracy, instead of a representative democracy, then perhaps we wouldn’t have to march in the streets, engage in civil disobedience, and hunger strikes.  Perhaps then we wouldn’t worry about the President sending the National Guard to college campuses and worry about citizens being gunned down while engaging in non-violent protests.  Perhaps then we wouldn’t have to live in fear of financial interests driving our politicians to pass legislation that adversely effects our health, safety, security, and environment.  Perhaps then we could take the power out of the hands of corrupt politicians and lobbyists and put it where it belongs; in the hands of those whom all of these decisions directly effect: US.

That is hope, that is change.  Change is not electing some demagogue or corrupt politician who thinks that what’s best for him is automatically what’s best.  You know what is best for you.  I know what is best for me.  Politicians in Washington know what is best for them.  How often do those propositions coincide?  Take a look at the state of our economy for the answer to that question.  

 

We already have a 500 year old working model for a participatory democracy in America: the Haudenesaunee Confederacy.  I will be looking at their system in depth as I believe it may make for an excellent guide for us as we begin to plan the shift to participatory democracy, so that our republic can continue to fulfill its mission; to be a place where the indefeasible, unalienable rights of human beings are steadfastly protected against anyone who would attempt to take them away.

We have an important job to do on Tuesday.  We must vote against, or deny our vote to a corrupt politician whose Chicago and international thugs are poised to rob us of our rights, our liberties, and our finances.  They have already spent the last two years robbing us of our right to free and fair elections.  So vote against, or refuse to vote for Obama on Tuesday, but do not go back to sleep.  If you do then the next Obama will be free to rear his ugly head and challenge us again.  The Chris Dodds, Barney Franks, Nancy Pelosis, Harry Reids, and George Bushes of America will come again and again to work against our interests and our rights.  They can only do so if we let them.  They can only do so if we fail to exercise our rights.  If we as a society remain satisfied with voting in fraudulent elections as our means of exercising our power then this republic is not worth having.  The corruption will continue, and our rights and liberties will continue to be subsumed and eroded by our government.  If we want equal rights for ALL people, if we want government to stop working against our interests, if we want political parties to stop corrupting the electoral system, it is up to us to stand up and change it, not some fraudulent liar from Illinois who is only going to give us more of the same, only worse.

No more, America.  No more.  

posted at Oh…my valve!

If you are resisting the power of your political Party, you are not the first – and you are not alone

It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

–Senator Margaret Chase Smith

At the present moment I am among those who are resisting powerful voices from the Democratic Party and pressure and intimidation from fellow Democrats, who say I MUST vote for Senator Obama or else…or else somehow I am a lesser Democrat. Balderdash.

Not much more than half a century ago, another political party was dominated by a figure who used fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear to advance his personal power and supposedly the power of his Party. That figure was Joseph McCarthy and he was a Republican. Many Democrats today know about Joe McCarthy and his witch hunts. But fewer, I think, know of Senator Margaret Chase Smith – possibly the most successful woman politician in twentieth century American federal politics – who not only took on Joe McCarthy, but also Barry Goldwater when she refused to take her name off the ballot for the Republican nomination for Presidency at the 1964 Republican National Convention, thereby denying Barry Goldwater unanimous consent to his nomination.

Among Senator Chase Smith’s many accomplishments:

• After four terms in the House, she won election to the United States Senate in 1948. In so doing, she became the first woman elected to both houses of Congress.
• She introduced legislation granting permanent status for women in the armed forces.
• She cosponsored the Equal Rights Amendment.
• She was the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for the presidency by either of the two major parties.

Read more about Senator Chase Smith at the website of the Margaret Chase Smith Library

For now, read the speech delivered in her first term as a U.S. Senator, standing up to a far more powerful Republican than she was. Margaret Chase Smith may have been less power powerful than Joe McCarthy. But her defiance of his tactics and methods certainly made her no lesser a Republican.

Declaration of Conscience, June 1, 1950 – delivered by Senator Margaret Chase Smith on the United States Senate Floor
(emphases added)
Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the legislative branch or the executive branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to any American, who is not a Senator, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American—and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against it—yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we “dish out” to outsiders.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its Members to do some soul searching—for us to weigh our consciences—on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America; on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech, but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause Nation-wide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation—in addition to being a party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of “know nothing, suspect everything” attitudes. Today we have a Democratic administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs. History is repeating itself—and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.

The record of the present Democratic administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears. America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances—that show the people that our Democratic administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country. Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this Nation. The Nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could—simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system.

As members of the minority party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government. But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in Senate debate—and I use the word “debate” advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.” As an American, I don’t want a Democratic administration “whitewash” or “cover-up” any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Democrat “Communist.” I condemn a Democrat “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Republican “Communist.” They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our Nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts I have drafted what I call a Declaration of Conscience. I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye and Senator Hendrickson, have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

Statement of Seven Republican Senators

1. We are Republicans. But we are Americans first. It is as Americans that we express our concern with the growing confusion that threatens the security and stability of our country. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to that confusion.

2. The Democratic administration has initially created the confusion by its lack of effective leadership, by its contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home, by its oversensitiveness to rightful criticism, by its petty bitterness against its critics.

3. Certain elements of the Republican Party have materially added to this confusion in the hopes of riding the Republican party to victory through the selfish political exploitation of fear, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. There are enough mistakes of the Democrats for Republicans to criticize constructively without resorting to political smears.

4. To this extent, Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.”

5. It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

Source: “Declaration of Conscience” by Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Statement of Seven Senators, June 1, 1950, Congressional Record, 82nd Congress. 1st Session, in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Roger Burns, Congress Investigates: A Documented History, 1792–1974 (New York: Chelsea House, 1963), 84–88.

Saying “NO!” is Your God Given Right: You Do Not Walk Alone.

As election day draws closer I feel a great deal of anxiety falling across the American collective unconscious. Expectation is mixing with trepidation. Dread, deep seeded feelings of dread. Which side will win? What will we lose? What do I do? I get calls and emails from people seeking my advice, needing to vent, wondering what is going to happen. I make the same inquiries of others. Democrats and Democrat leaning independents, many of whom have never voted for a Republican in their lives (such as myself), have been asking these questions more than most I suspect. Can’t say that I blame them. Liberty and democracy have taken quite a beating from the Democrat Party this year, so much so that I find it difficult to leave the “ic” in the party’s name as democratic is the last thing the party has been in 2008. Still, despite all their misgivings about the Democrat Party nominee, many are afraid to make the break and own their vote, casting it against, or withholding it from him. On finding clarity of judgement I suggest that those of you out there that find yourselves in this difficult place take some advice from someone far more wise on such matters than I; John Adams.

Adams was a true believer in the American experiment. He was its conscience, its soul. To Adams, human liberty was so essential (despite the tarring he received by history for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts; the writing and Congressional passage of which he did not request), he moved to help create a nation whose highest purpose was the fostering and protection of that liberty.

Keep the words of President Adams in mind as you consider what to do with your vote on November 4th.         

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have… a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.

 

 

As a human being, not simply as an American, but as a human being you deserve to know who your leaders are, where they come from, whom they associate with, and what they believe. Senator Obama has been less than candid. He has obfuscated and obscured his past. Do you know his GPA from college? Neither do I. He hasn’t released his transcripts. He has lied again and again regarding his associations with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, ACORN, and Tony Rezko. And even when he gets caught in his lies, he continues to tell them. Senator Obama has denied us our indefeasible right to know even the most basic information about these matters.

 

Society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.

 

The aforementioned questions about Senator Obama’s life should have been made public when he ran for the Illinois State Legislature, State Senate, and United States Senate. Certainly now when he aspires to highest office in the land that information is essential. It has been denied, and says much regarding his lack of character, as does his treatment of the people whose lives he wishes to affect. He has called the working class racist, bitter, clinging, and has publicly mocked them as he has mocked Joe the Plumber. It is inexcusable that a man who would be our President disdainfully insults the men and women who are the backbone of this country.  

The constant and inappropriate sexist and misogynistic remarks hurled at Senator Clinton by the candidate, his campaign, and his surrogates during the primaries are yet another mark against him which, with puny exception from his party, went unchallenged.  

He has exposed his elitism, sexism, and his bigotry. He has proven his lack of moral authority on more occasions than I care to count. This is a man who would not be able to get even the most basic government security clearance due to his associations with known terrorists.  As President he would have access to nuclear launch codes, and entrance to the Situation Room. He has not even disclosed his real birth certificate, and yet expects us to trust him with our nation’s security and prosperity.  It is shocking and disgraceful.  The fact that the Democrat Party nominated him is as glaring a sign of its corruption as his actions are of his.

         

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

 

If elected President Senator Obama would have the power to declare martial law by Executive Order. This is a man who has used police, sheriffs and prosecutors in the state of Missouri in “truth squads” to attempt to stifle the broadcasting of advertisements that oppose his candidacy. Senator Obama is using these officials to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens simply as a candidate for President. 

He voted for the FISA bill this past summer, after publicly stating that he would lead the filibuster against it, legitimating George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping scheme, further eroding our right to privacy.  

He allowed his party and supporters to prevent the lawful assembly of Senator Clinton’s pledged delegates during the Democratic National Convention so that they could not organize and collect the 800 signatures of petition required to demand a full, open, and complete roll call from the convention floor.  Had this happened I doubt he would be the Democrat Party’s nominee.  Rather than support democratic process he allowed it to be subverted for his own gain.  

If he is willing to do these things as a candidate, I have no doubt that he would be more than willing to use his presidential powers to stifle any and all dissent. I do not trust Senator Obama to preserve our liberties as President.

The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.

 

Again, Senator Obama and his campaign are guilty of all three. He has suppressed these rights on his own website. Voices of dissent against his policy positions are purged. Supporters of the candidate have had their accounts shut down, shrouded due to their opposition to his stances and actions. He has tried to alter our speech, and make us afraid to speak out of fear that we will be tarred as racists. He has done so with Bill and Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and anyone else willing to stand up to him. When videos of him proclaiming his National Civilian Security Force are circulated his minions attempt to delete them. His minions have tried to hack into and shut down blogs. Senator Obama is more than willing to attempt to destroy our freedoms to serve his purpose. His candidacy is an immediate threat to our way of life, and our dearest freedoms.  I shudder to think what he is capable of as President.

If you are a Democrat, or Democrat leaning independent who desires to stand against Senator Obama you are not alone. Go to the blog roll here and you will find pathways to millions of people who are refusing to vote for Senator Obama. Whether it is for his and the DNC’s destruction of democratic process, the quelling of dissent, the suppression of our constitutional rights, or his lying about his associations, you do not owe him any allegiance in thought, word, or deed. Your vote is your own. Use it as you will. And remember the words of President Adams. This is your country. These are your freedoms. Your vote is your own and no one else’s. Most importantly, you are not alone. It is your God given human right to stand with us and say NO!

 

posted from Oh…my valve!

 

For a variation on the theme please read my dear friend Dakinikat’s view at Sky Dancing in a Man’s World

The Tree of Peace

For over two centuries Americans have prided themselves over the document that serves as the basis of our nation’s republic; the Constitution of the United States of America.  Conceived in wake of the initiation of the greatest social contract in the history of Western society, America’s founding principle is that each of us (certainly it has taken a while to fully define the “us,” but that’s another post) possesses the unalienable human right to liberty; the freedom to live one’s life as they see fit, provided that the individual does not tread upon the liberty and rights of another individual.  It was, and is like nothing ever conceived…by Western society.  Here in North America there exists the longest standing participatory democracy on earth, but it is not the United States.  It is the Six Nation Confederacy of the Haudenesaunee (you know it as the Iroquois Confederacy).

At least 200 years before the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, this confederacy was created for the mutual defense and peace of its members.  The Seneca, Oneida, Onondaga, Mohawk, and Cayuga comprised the original confederacy founded sometime in the 1570′s (by the estimates of European calendars), with the Tuscarora migrating to what is now New York State in the 1700′s.  The final Tuscarora migration ended in 1803.

 It was the Great Peacemaker, Deganawida, who brought the nations together under the Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace, the Haudenesaunee constitution symbolized by the White Tree of Peace.  Many legends are told, but it is commonly held that his first disciple was Hiawatha.  His vision that peace would come through a uniting of the nations drove him to bring the confederacy together.  Essentially the premise of the Confederacy’s structure is that each nation remained autonomous in its own local affairs, with a great council holding sway over the affairs pertaining to the Confederacy as a whole; to put it in familiar terms to, “…establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare…”  I would argue that in many ways the Haudenesaunee Confederacy is more closely related to the Articles of Confederation in that the Articles clearly held up the states as totally autonomous entities.  Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the Six Nation Confederacy structure played a part not only in the creation of the Articles, but the Constitution as well.  It also seems that they have formed a more perfect union.  I believe there are two central reasons for this.  Firstly, it is a participatory democracy, whereas ours is a representative democracy.  Secondly, from the outset the governing structure of the Confederacy was egalitarian.

 There is no Chief Executive, but a Great Council of Sachems.  There are 50 Sachems, each equal in power.  The Sachems and the Chiefs of their respective tribes comprise the tribal councils. Unlike our Congress,  the Great Council cannot even convene itself.  It is convened by the Councils of individual tribes, and unanimity holds sway over all decisions.  Each tribe has the ability to veto the others.  A General Council is open to all to address, with the final decisions being made by the Great Council.

 From the outset, women of the Confederacy held real power.  It is the women who hold the power to approve or reject a declaration of war.  Clans are matrilineal.  It is also the clan mothers who choose the members of the Great Council of Sachems.  Any leader who does not abide by the wishes of the women, and the Great Law of Peace, can be removed by the clan mothers.  In other words, LISTEN TO THE WOMEN!

 Their democracy hears the voice of all the people.  Their democracy endures.

 Here in the United States the Supreme Court has struck down the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision compelling the Ohio Secretary of State to identify 200,000 voter registrations that might not be in compliance, or completely fraudulent to the state’s 88 counties.  Protecting the voter registration/voter fraud scheme of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President through its grassroots surrogates at ACORN, the Supreme Court, one of the three branches of our government as created by our nation’s constitution, has failed to protect and defend that constitution.  The Constitution protects the rights of legal citizens to vote, not Mickey Mouse.      

 Federal Justices swear two oaths when they assume office:

 I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ^^^  under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.

 I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

 When the Supreme Court of the United States allows a state official to conceal possible voter registration/voter fraud I say that it is acting in violation of that oath.

 To whom now do we turn to protect our rights?  The Executive Branch that is currently overseeing a regime of warrantless wire tapping?  The Congress that voted to sanction said regime while simultaneously granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that allowed the government to execute the scheme, or the Supreme Court that is going to allow the Democrat Party in Ohio to violate the sanctity of the franchise of the citizens of Ohio?

 My friends, at this moment we are without a legitimate constitutional body of governance.  In Lockian terms, the government of the United States has violated the social contract between itself and the citizens of the United States.  It is not operating to ensure our Safety and Happiness.

 I love this country.  It took in my family in the early half of the 20th century, sheltering us from the persecution of government sanctioned anti-semitism, allowing us to stake our claim to the American dream.  We are doctors, lawyers, teachers, entrepreneurs, and caring citizens.  We have served in the military at home and abroad, as well as the Civilian Defense Corps during World War II.  We have been active participants in this democracy.  We cherish it, and the freedom it represents.

 Is America perfect?  Far from it.  But having a major political party deconstruct democratic process to enforce its own political morality on its rank and file membership, as well as the American people, is not a legitimate way to move our society to achieving a more perfect union, and it certainly is not the way to ensure domestic tranquility. 

 My friends we are facing a constitutional crisis as we do not have a government that operates in accordance with the social contract laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.  I do not doubt that the Haudenesaunee Confederacy and Constitution will continue to endure as it has for more than four centuries. I wish I could say the same for ours. 

posted from Oh…my valve!

Senator Obama’s lack of integrity does not have to be ours

Cross-posted from Heidi Li’s Potpourri

Got economic woes? Think you need to elect Barack Obama president to cure them? Better think about this.

Barack Obama  wants to buy the presidency. If you think this means he’s a good money manager, think again. The first president in modern politics to forego public financing in order to put himself “awash in money” was George W. Bush, whose eight year administration has played a major hand in creating those economic woes you’ve got.

In the 2004 primary season, George W. Bush was the first to forego public financing for the primary season. Right on his heels: John Kerry and Howard Dean. But both Bush and Kerry relied on public financing for the general election. Because accepting public financing caps both the total amount a candidate can spend and limits where he or she may spend it, when candidates accept public financing they agree de facto to a more level playing field. (There are still ways candidates can work around the limits placed upon them when they accept public funding (campaigns can encourage 527s, although they may not contribute to them, and campaigns can also et up “joint fundraising” committees -  details, more information, and useful links here.)

However, before he was even his Party’s nominee, Senator Obama became the first modern U.S.Presidential candidate to definitively reject public financing, and the constraints that come with it. (See “Obama, in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing”,The New York Times, June 20, 2008.) Prior to this flip, the three leading presidential contenders – Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton – had agreed to opt in to public financing for the general election. In keeping with his general style of changing positions and tactics whenever it suits him, guess who reneged on that agreement?  Barack Obama. John McCain chose not too. More information here.

Senator Obama claimed that he simply HAD to opt out of public financing because of the formidable might of Senator McCain’s campaign and PACs that would support him. Except that John McCain’s campaign does not have fiscal might, and nobody credible thought it would back when Senator Obama played victim to justify his decision. (See “Obama’s Lame Claim About McCain’s Money,” from the University of Pennsylvania’s Public Policy Annenberg Center.)

Meanwhile, John McCain, whatever else you can say against him, has kept his word and chose to stick with public financing for the general election, knowing that it could easily put him at a fiscal disadvantage in relation to the Dean/Obama created Obama money-reaping machine. (See the discussion here about how Senator McCain’s decision affected his ability to continue to advertise in Michigan.)

Perhaps you are thinking to yourself: well, that Senator Obama is just proving he is one smart money guy. If he can enrich his campaign coffers so well then he’ll enrich my bank account too. Now, all you have to do to is reread that that sentence to see the error. A person who is interested in funding his own will to power has no reason to be interested in protecting the economic interests of anybody else, particularly once he attains his goal. After all, if such a person succeeds in buying himself into office, why bother with worries about the needs of others? Personal greed is not only not good, it simply does not translate into care for the general welfare.

Greed and ambition do not make for good fiscal leadership. Putting yourself on budget even when the other guy won’t does show a certain integrity, particularly if you also co-sponsored the leading campaign finance reform bill of our time:  the McCain-Feingold Act, formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (By the way, Senator Clinton voted in favor of that bill; Senator Obama was not a member of the Senate at that time.)

John McCain took a lot of heat from his fellow Republicans for not only speaking up about campaign finance reform but actually DOING something about it.

Time for we Democrats to put the heat on Barack Obama for what he has and has not done, with regard to fundraising, campaign spending, and a long list of other matters where he his conduct does not comport with the standards we as Democrats expect from a nominee running under our name. Senator Obama’s lack of integrity does not have to be ours.

As we approach a new President’s first 100 days…

We ought to consider the last U.S. President who came into office at a time of economic turmoil and used not only his first hundred days but all the years of his administrations to transform American society into one intended to be a union for mutual benefit. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. had an extraordinary sense of political-social empathy, the ability to relate to Americans completely unlike him in background but whose loyalty and trust he earned as he demonstrated how government could provide emergency relief without breaking individual taxpayers’ backs or pushing U.S. businesses into collapse. Then when the worst economic turbulence settled, F.D.R. worked with the legislature and the courts to introduce political oversight of the economy – not micromanagement – but oversight to keep greed and avararice from interfering with the cooperation necessary for mutual prosperity.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt arrived in office with years of public service and political experience. He served in lower level offices – e.g. Assistant Secretary of the Navy – as well higher level ones – e.g. Governor of New York. He had honed his political acumen and his reputation for his commitment to the Democratic Party as a whole. He had seen rural poverty in Georgia and urban poverty in New York City. He had crisscrossed the country as a Vice-Presidential candidate. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. had flaws and faults (no human being does not) and he certainly had ambition. But he was that rare politician who almost always played to his strengths and who understood the importance of channeling personal ambition into a promoting a political agenda that would serve the many, not just the one.

Some excerpts from The White House presidential biography series:

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. He brought hope as he promised prompt, vigorous action, and asserted in his [first] Inaugural Address, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Following the example of his fifth cousin, President Theodore Roosevelt, whom he greatly admired, Franklin D. Roosevelt entered public service through politics, but as a Democrat. He won election to the New York Senate in 1910. President Wilson appointed him Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and he was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1920.

In the summer of 1921, when he was 39, disaster hit-he was stricken with poliomyelitis. Demonstrating indomitable courage, he fought to regain the use of his legs, particularly through swimming. At the 1924 Democratic Convention he dramatically appeared on crutches to nominate Alfred E. Smith as “the Happy Warrior.” In 1928 Roosevelt became Governor of New York.

He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first “hundred days,” he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt’s New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.

In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.

Safety and Happiness

What are we really talking about when we speak of reforming the Democratic Party?  Considering the events we have witnessed in 2008; the co-opting and absorption of the DNC by the Dean/Daughtry/Donna/Obama wing of the party, the complete dismantling of democratic procedure, the threatening and intimidation of party members, and what in reality is akin to a purge of all non-believers in the Hope and Change Express, we are talking about nothing less than a full scale rebellion.  The task is great.  It is not simply a corrupted leadership we must contend with, but a corruption of ideals.

The nomination of Sarah Palin saw the unleashing of vicious attacks against her, particularly by left-wing “feminists” (the need for the use of quotes can be dealt with in another post, but is hopefully self-evident).  They threw Senator Clinton under the bus for a misogynist, and then turned their sights on Palin.  It should now be clear to all who were not engaged in the PUMA movement this past summer that women’s rights are in fact not valued by the current party leadership.  To them, reproductive rights are only for those women who choose abortion (though when the Democratic Convention opens in Denver with a religious convocation, where the keynote speaker openly condemns abortion, it is arguable that the new DNC is preparing to fast track the adoption of the abolition of reproductive rights as we know them to the Democratic Party platform); women’s liberation only applies to Left leaning women who choose to pursue family, career, and holding public office.  The level of hypocrisy is staggering, but honestly not surprising.  After all, this is the party that made Nancy Pelosi, the now famous panderer and Bush lapdog, Speaker of the House.

The current economic crisis has exposed this corrupting of values as well.  It is now well documented that what began as a desire to help minorities and low income Americans have a shot at owning their own piece of the American dream, became an open floodgate for rampant and unchecked speculation and abuse.  Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, along with other Congressional Democrats, stood in the way of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform and are knee deep in questionable connections to both.  They also happen to be major beneficiaries of Fannie and Freddie largess, with Dodd and Obama receiving the largest purses from the now failed companies (Obama receiving in three years more than 5 times the amount given to John McCain in 18.5 years).  Frank went on record in 2003 as a denier that there were any problems on the horizon regarding Fannie and Freddie.  These people helped open the door, turned a blind eye, and benefitted financially and politically from the abuses that generated this crisis.  Now they are cheering the loudest for a $700 billion giveaway of our money, which will at best put a bony finger in the dike, so they can rescue their benefactors.

Party appartchiks at all levels helped enforce a predetermined outcome at the Democratic National Convention this past August in violation of the most sacred tenets of the Party’s charter.  This in the wake of the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in May that set our rebellion in motion.  Now we are watching them create an outlet for voter fraud in Ohio, and using their positions to violate the Constitution in Missouri.

We are not simply talking about bringing down the junta that brought the bitter taste of fascism to the Democratic Party.  If we are going to speak of reform then we must be prepared to engage in nothing less than ending the political careers of the corrupt politicians responsible for this mess, and rebuilding the Democratic Party from the Congress, all the way down to state and local levels.  To put it another way; if the Democratic Party were on “Home Again” Bob Vila would be dealing with a colonial mansion, ravaged by termites and rot, needing to be stripped to its foundations to be completely renovated and restored.  I envy the relative ease of Bob’s task.

It would certainly be easier and safer to sit back and let all of this happen, go back to our private lives, and go to sleep, but it’s not in our nature.  Voices from our past call us.  Our history makes demands on us that we cannot ignore:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.      

       ~ The Declaration of Independence, 1776

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

  ~ Declaration of Sentiments, 1848

When faced with a political entity that has done us harm, impinged on our rights and freedoms, are we not obliged to alter it so that it better effects our Safety and Happiness?  Undoubtedly Chairman Dean and the DNC hope our answer is no.  Dr. Dean, consider that bubble to be burst.

 

This post is cross-posted at Oh…my valve!

On Olive Branches and Rebellion

In 1775, the Massachusetts Colony found itself in armed conflict with Great Britain.  By July the battles of Lexington and Concord had already taken place, the British had laid siege to Boston, Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold led the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont against Fort Ticonderoga in New York, George Washington was named the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, and the British had engaged the revolutionary forces at Breed’s Hill.  With the raising of the Continental Army, and the circumstances in Massachusetts Colony, the thirteen stood at the brink of a full scale war.

The Continental Congress in Philadelphia debated the merits of independency versus reconciliation.  Before the more conservative elements of the Congress, led by Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson, would even consider independence a viable option, they demanded that the Congress extend a conciliatory overture to King George III.  The result was what became known as the Olive Branch Petition.  Despite the number of offenses the colonists were forced to endure, from a lack of representation in Parliament, to the Intolerable Acts and beyond, they sought a peaceful redress of their grievances in the hopes that conflict could be avoided:

Knowing, to what violent resentments and incurable animosities, civil discords are apt to exasperate and inflame the contending parties, we think ourselves required by indispensable obligations to Almighty God, to your Majesty, to our fellow subjects, and to ourselves, immediately to use all the means in our power not incompatible with our safety, for stopping the further effusion of blood, and for averting the impending calamities that threaten the British Empire.

It is reported that George III never even set eyes on the petition, dismissed it out of hand, publicly proclaimed the colonies to be in open rebellion, and demanded it be suppressed, ordering all members of the realm to seek out and turn in participants in the revolt for punishment:

Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us…

Now, in 2008, we find that not much has changed.  From the moment that the DNC anointed their chosen candidate, immediately following the June 3rd primaries, members of the PUMA movement petitioned Democratic Party Automatic Delegates, members of the DNC, and its Chairman Howard Dean, demanding that democratic procedures be upheld, that the party adhere to its rules, and allow these machinations to play themselves out openly and freely.  We literally begged.

Through it all Chairman Dean and his hench(wo)men obstinately refused to make an open, unequivocal statement regarding Senator Clinton’s name being placed in nomination.  It was obvious to those paying attention that the DNC was going to do everything possible to insure that their selected candidate was not going to be challenged at the Democratic National Convention.  It was in this atmosphere that The Denver Group, PUMA PAC, and the rest of the Just Say No Deal Coalition were formed.  Fighting through the summer, it was not until the middle of August that the Democratic Party finally acknowledged, under pressure from us, that yes, Senator Clinton’s name would be placed in nomination.  Then the issue immediately became; would her delegates be allowed to vote? 

Again we petitioned.  We made phone calls.  We contacted the Automatic Delegates from our states.  We wrote letters to the editor.  We placed advertisements in newspapers.  We marched in the streets of Denver. All to no avail.  Our voices fell on deaf ears.  Senator Clinton’s pledged delegates were intimidated, threatened, and prevented from meeting and organizing, lest they obtain the 800 signatures required to call for a full roll call vote from the floor of the convention.  The ballots were cast behind closed doors.  The televised roll call was a sham, rigged to deliver an outcome that had been determined before the first Democratic Primary ballot had ever been cast.  As was told to me by a Clinton pledged delegate on the street in Denver; there was no way Clinton was ever going to get the nomination, because Howard Dean and Donna Brazile did not want her to have it.

We gave the DNC and the Democratic Party every opportunity to adhere to its own charter.  We gave them ample opportunity to show that they valued democracy.  We were not asking for anything extraordinary.  All we wanted was for the delegates to the Democratic Party’s convention to be able to exercise their rights and obligations under the party’s rules.  All we wanted was for the delegates to vote openly and freely so that our votes, as represented by those delegates, would be counted and recorded.  Is this such an outrageous request?  Is it so stupendous a notion to expect that a political entity, that operates ultimately under the Constitution of the United States, allow citizens to have their votes counted?  It is our most sacred right as Americans.  It was denied to us, and now the time for petitions has passed.  The time for revolt is upon us.

The Democratic Party has not characterized us much differently than George III did the rebellious colonies whom he said were, “…forgetting their allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them.”  Has the Democratic Party not said we have no where else to go?  But like the misguided king, the Democratic Party fails to see the obvious; when the DNC subverted its own democratic procedures, allowed the proliferation of rampant sexist attacks against one of its own candidates, attempted to suppress and isolate its homosexual members by denying them the benefit of party affirmative action rules, and refused to allow our votes to be properly represented at the Democratic National Convention, it was not protecting or supporting us in any way, shape, or form.  The Democratic Party’s own actions have drawn us into an open rebellion.  Even as we begin to engage in this fight their candidate demands that his followers get in our faces, “truth squads”, under the auspices of the DNC, are being formed to suppress the Constitutional rights of American citizens, and a complicit media creates a false reality designed to marginalize the opposition.

George III’s response to the Continental Congress’ petition was unequivocal.  Those who returned to the side of the crown were to be embraced.  Those that were unrepentant and led the movement were to be hanged.  Undoubtedly it was a somber moment when the vote for independency was cast.  There was no going back.  If the rebellion failed the delegates to the Congress would surely have been executed for treason.  There is no going back for us either.  To curb and censor ourselves, to cease in this effort now would be to capitulate to the end of Democratic principle and let all that we hold dear as citizens be bastardized and twisted until it is beyond recognition.  This is not a time for parsing.  This is not a time for equivocating.  As was written by Thomas Paine in 1776:

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested.

We are fighting for nothing less than a universal and unalienable human right that no man made institution has the right to attempt to suppress.  Though there may be millions of Americans willing to abdicate those rights; we are not among them.  The Democratic Party is on notice that we will exercise those rights to their fullest extent under the law in order to see that they are preserved.

 

cross posted at Oh…my valve!

Thursday Morning

Mornin’!  It looks like some of our not so faithful readers have decided to sideline The Confluence on WordPress.  While we are figuring out just what the problem is, after more than a year of consistently being one of WordPress’s top political blogs, we’re going to try to post here.

Grrrr….  BTW, this is the view I would like to see from my oceanside condo in Napili, Maui.

If you have one you want to can let me borrow for next to nothing, please let me know in the comments.

The New York Times reports that banks don’t really want to service delinquent loans and work out a new payment schedule because they are doing quite well collecting revenues associated with delinquency, thank you very much.  As the ecoomists tell us, it’s all about the rents:

Even when borrowers stop paying, mortgage companies that service the loans collect fees out of the proceeds when homes are ultimately sold in foreclosure. So the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater the opportunities for these mortgage companies to extract revenue — fees for insurance, appraisals, title searches and legal services.

“It frustrates me when I see the government looking to the servicer for the solution, because it will never ever happen,” said Margery Golant, a Florida lawyer who defends homeowners against foreclosure and who worked in the law department of a major mortgage company, Ocwen Financial. “I don’t think they’re motivated to do modifications at all. They keep hitting the loan all the way through for junk fees. It’s a license to do whatever they want.”

Quelle Surprise!

The media has been very effective as spinning the health care reform bill as a “government takeover” even though it’s anything but.  Ok, so as long as that’s the way the public sees it, why not actually make it a government takeover? What do you have to lose at this point?  Let this be a lesson to Democrats: next time you’re in the majority, the first thing you need to do is get control of the airwaves.  Work on breaking up the media conglomerates.  THEN you can stomp all over the right wing noise machine. Control the message and you control the legislation.  Oh, and it might help if you didn’t go out of your way to piss off your base during the primaries.

I don’t read much Michael Barone and don’t know where he falls on the political spectrum but he’s absolutely right about Obama’s inability to legislate.  Obama never had much practice.  He started running for president almost as soon as he entered the Senate.  He doesn’t have his own constituencies there.  One thing Obama is good at is comandeering the airwaves during lunch.  It seems like he’s on TV in the cafeteria every single day.  It reminds me of those banana republics where the dictator’s face is plastered on every billboard and street corner.  Very, VERY creepy.  BTW, from what I can see, no one is paying attention anymore.  Familiarity breeds contempt.

Marie Cocco asks why we can’t have Medicare for All?  You have to ask yourself why so few voices advocating for single payer or medicare for all were invited to discussions on health care.  The approach to health care reform was skewed very heavily to the right.

The Winter of our Discontent

In late summer of 1777, Major General William Howe landed his forces at what is now Elkton, Maryland to begin his advance on Philadelphia, the capital of the newly born United States.  Seeking to stop Howe’s forces before they took the city, General Washington took up a defensive position at Chadds Ford, by the banks of the Brandywine River.  Probably most known these days as the home of Andrew Wyeth, and the Brandywine River Museum (my favorite museum on earth), it is an area I know well, and for which I have an abiding affection.  The meandering river, the sycamore, and willows, the farms and rolling hills are elements I know well.  Unfortunately for General Washington, being from Virginia, the Brandywine River Valley was not an area with which he was very familiar.

He set up positions at Pyle’s ford to the south and Wistar’s ford to the north of his main position in the hopes of engaging Howe’s forces along the road from Baltimore to Philadelphia (now commonly known as Route 1).  Howe sent a force to march the route Washington predicted Howe would take, but sent the bulk of his force to cross the Brandywine north of Wistar’s ford and marched them south, outflanking Washington’s forces on September 11th.  After a hard fought battle Washington’s army retreated and regrouped in Chester.  Though there were minor skirmishes in the weeks that followed, Howe’s forces marched unopposed into Philadelphia.  Howe assumed the war was over.  Washington and Congress had other ideas.

The Congress relocated to York.  Washington relocated the army to Whitemarsh, and then Valley Forge where armaments and supplies had been hidden in the small town.  He found the community burned to the ground by the British.  Howe and his men spent the winter partying and getting drunk in Philly.  

The stories of privation at Valley Forge are legendary: the bootless men leaving bloody footprints in the snow; maggot infested hardtack, and fire cakes were the choice meals when there was any supply of food. Desertions were frequent.  Death and disease dwindled the numbers further.  Washington positioned 11,000 men at the Brandywine.  In the opening months of 1778, 1000 men were reported unfit due to illness, as many as 3000 were reported dead.  Morale could not have possibly been lower.  But Spring brought new life and new spirit to Washington’s army.

General Nathanael Greene replaced the unmotivated General Mifflin as quartermaster general.  Roads to Lancaster were improved, and supply wagons began to arrive.  Under the direction of Baron von Steuben, the undisciplined army was forged into a legitimate force.  The new alliance with France brought seasoned, and well supplied soldiers to reinforce the army, and their naval power drew out the British from Philadelphia who moved to defend New York from French assault.  Washington’s army followed them.  At the battle of Monmouth, Washington took to the field to personally reverse his men, who had been ordered to retreat by their incompetent field commander.  In the end it was the British who retreated.  Washington’s army was now a force to be reckoned with.

This November we walk toward our long winter.  Regardless of who wins we are out in the cold.  One result makes our work infinitely easier.  The other will make things daunting at best.  What is Guy Fawkes Day going to feel like?  Pretty bad.  What is January 20th going to feel like?  Worse, I suspect.

We must cultivate new alliances.  We must put agendas and egos aside.  We must stop seeing our little patches of turf in the coalition as our own and make them part of a larger machination.  We must reach out beyond our coaltion for the kind of practical political support that we are going to need to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves.  Our ability to do so will be a major determinant of our success or failure.

In the meantime I would suggest getting your hands in the earth.  Do some weeding, plant and prune for winter, gather your firewood.  Benjamin Franklin said, “Failure to prepare is preparing to fail,” and, “Diligence is the mother of good luck.”

He also said, “Don’t plan to hunt two hares with one dog.”

 

cross-posted at Oh…my valve!

This Far, and No Further

I believe that in his heart, Thomas Jefferson was an anarchist.  Anarchy is a society without rulers, not a society without rules.  He understood that our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are inalienable.  No government can reward those rights.  No government can take them away.  We are already in possession of them. We do not need government to protect rights that cannot be taken from us. That being the case, “in the best of all possible worlds,” to quote Dr. Pangloss, we would not need a government.  If 2008 is any indication we are far from living in the best of all possible worlds.  I have a feeling Jefferson would agree. 

There has been a lot of talk over the last several months about who is a real Democrat and who is not, who is a patriot and who is not. Anyone who allows their party to get away with violating its own charter and sunshine laws, gives tacit approval to rampant caucus fraud, and subverts its own democratic procedures at its convention by intimidating delegates, preventing them from meeting, and holding rigged votes behind closed doors to my mind is neither.   

In 1801 Jefferson told Benjamin Waring:

The will of the people… is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object. 

We are already a society that has quietly accepted the suspension of habeas corpus, and warrantless wire tapping. Now we are supposed to accept the subversion of our right of franchise? Now we are supposed to accept that political institutions can reject democratic procedure in order to advance their preferred candidates and let the will of the people be damned?  NO! 

On May 31, 2008 we watched the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee violate its own charter and its sunshine laws when it arbitrarily assigned 59 Michigan delegates to Barack Obama.  It is well documented now that the Obama campaign perpetrated rampant fraud at caucuses around the country.  I was in Denver and was personally told by pledged delegates that they were being intimidated and threatened into changing their votes to Obama.  It is also now known that Clinton pledged delegates were not even permitted to organize or meet, and were forced to participate in a fraudulent roll call vote.  All in the name of presenting a wholly and totally false picture of party unity to the nation.  All in the name of advancing a personality.

The Oxford American Dictionary includes in the definition of fascism, “…a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.”

 

The Democratic Party’s leadership has certainly demonstrated contempt for democracy, insisted on obedience (though I would say Obama is far from a powerful leader), and has put forward a candidate that has employed a strong demagogic approach.  I will certainly not follow when an American political institution begins down the road of fascism.

As Democrats, and former Democrats, we must draw a line in the sand; this far and no further!  We must hold the Democratic Party responsible for what it has done in order to reclaim it.  This is America, not Putin’s Russia. We are bound by our Constitution, and the natural law of human decency, to protect and defend our rights when faced with a body that designs to deprive us of them, as is the President and the Congress.  They have abdicated that responsibility. We have not, and we will not apologize for it.

cross posted at Oh…my valve!

A new Democratic Party means a Party that welcomes honest discussion rather than unity euphoria

I am fatigued as I write this. Long day at work, long day at civic responsibility, long day period. But I must cross post my colleague’s writing because Real Clear Politics yanked it, either because of an unthinking filter or an unthinking moderator.  I’m posting a version that I hope will survive the whichever of these mechanisms was responsible for the yank. (h/t to Murphy for bringing the importance of allies to the forefront)

Cross posted from Tom in Paine

HOW DEMOCRATS CAN DEFEAT OBAMA, SEE McCAIN WIN, STILL GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT AND RESPECT THEMSELVES IN THE MORNING.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. But one fellow most Democrats know they don’t want to be in bed with is Barack Obama. The other choice, John McCain, doesn’t sound too appealing to many Democrats either. The third choice is, as Sarah Palin
would no doubt support, is abstinence. But the argument some make is
that abstinence is the same as voting for John McCain. And it is.

Many Democrats seem to be going through a period of conflict over this election. They see Obama
for what he is, a dishonest, snake oil salesman, unfit and unqualified
to be President, throwing out one sweet talking lie after another at
the political Mr. Goodbar,
trying to pick up as many votes as he can get. And while most reject
him, they also are recoiling over the idea of having a one night stand
with a Republican, any Republican, though the guilty pleasure of having
Obama
lose and cheating on the cheater is too good to resist.But what they
worry about the most is , how will they feel in the morning?

Many of these are Clinton supporters who very much wanted to see Hillary
Clinton get the nomination for a variety of reasons, including the
historic ones. And while many supported Clinton for the breakthroughs
she represented to women, the real reason Clinton was the superior
candidate had nothing to do with gender. She was simply the superior
and more qualified candidate. And Obama clearly unqualified and from a character point of view, unfit.

And so what would make a Clinton supporter who viewed Obama as the clearly inferior candidate
even consider voting for him now for President? the only reason seems
to be either guilt over voting for a Republican, or a sense of not
cheating on the Democratic Party, a party that this year cheated on
them and violated every rule, procedure and principle of democracy in
order to have to a nominee that the majority of the party voted against.

There
is also the ongoing belief that a Democrat, any Democrat, would be
better than a Republican in the White House. And in most cases that
would be true. But not this year.

The truth is, there are more good reasons to defeat Obama and the Obamacrats than to elect him, even for the staunchest of Democrats.

For those who actually think Barack Obama
is qualified to be President,no amount of truth, logic or reason is
going to change their minds. To do so means having to admit they were
taken in and made fools of, and as any cop will tell you, most con men
get away with their con because their marks are so embarrassed to admit
they were taken they just keep quiet.

Obama
is simply unfit to be President in any way. Whether it was his serial
lying about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and what he knew and
when he knew it, and the fact that he was more than willing to tolerate
Wright’s views of 911, and his views on race and never felt offended
enough to walk out, to his lying to the people of Ohio about NAFTA and
his other reversals and broken pledges on everything from public
financing of campaigns to FISA, he is simply not someone you want to take home to the White House.

Aside from his dishonesty, clinical narcissism
and almost pathological lack of conscience, he has no ability to do the
job he is seeking and has never in his life ever exhibited even the
smallest evidence that he could do it. On the basis of integrity, there
is nothing to consider. Obama has no integrity and as far as we can see from his past, never did.

McCain
on the other hand, though one can disagree with some of his policies,
has in fact demonstrated that he is willing to stand up for what he
believes, and more importantly, stand up to Republicans which, based on
some of Obama’s policy statements makes Obama sound more Republican than McCain.

Yes McCain has agreed with Bush on a lot of things but Obama has actually agreed with Bush on more and based on his public pronouncements, it ia Obama that sounds more like a Bush 3rd term than McCain. Obama
has endorsed Bush’s faith based initiatives which are clearly
unconstitutional, endorsed Bush’s position on Iraq (let the commanders
on the ground decide), now says he supported the surge, reversed
himself on off shore drilling so his position is now more Republican, reversed himself on the DC gun ban, and has said that the Republican Party is the party of ideas.

So
for those Democrats are have been reluctant to vote for a Republican or
see a Republican win on ideological grounds, what is it that they think
they are getting with Obama?

McCain
on the other hand has broken with Republicans when his conscience told
him too, incurred the wrath of Rush Limbaugh and conservatives over his
position on illegal immigration, daring to take a more humane approach,
and before that, incurred the wrath of many in his party with the
McCain-Feingold
bill in which McCain joined forces with one of the Senate’s most liberal
Democrats to pass campaign finance reform. And sticking to that philosophy is campaigning using public financing, while Obama who pledged to use public financing reneged on it as soon as he became the nominee leaving MoveOn, Maureen Dowd, and editors across the country feeling used and with tears on their pillows.

Like it or not, the record shows McCain is the real reformer and the real deal, while Obama
is what most of the 18 million Democrats who voted against him know him
to be — a snake oil salesman who has managed to bamboozle a lot of
dumb and impressionable people hanging out – the Democratic Mr. Goodbar, who has hoodwinked  the dumb media blonds like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and almost everyone at Newsweek, the NY Times and CNN who he has eating out of hand.

The
other thing to keep in mind about McCain is that he is rated last by
conservative groups in supporting conservative legislation. His voting
record is ranked 49th
among Republican Senators by conservative watch dog groups which is why
a lot of conservatives cant stand him. In other words, disaffected
liberal Democrats who cant possibly in good conscience vote for Obama could do a lot worse than bringing McCain home to mother.

How absurd is the idea of Obama as President? Think about Obama being put in charge of the country’s nuclear codes. I know. It almost makes you laugh out loud. Do I think that Obama would actually do something stupid with those codes? No. I bring it up to point out the true absurdity of Obama
being elected President, and to put a fine point on the realities of
and the enormity of the job and its responsibilities and how woefully
and laughably inadequate Barack Obama is to those responsibilities.

The final argument people try to use on Democrats who don’t support Obama
is Roe v.Wade and that a McCain presidency would put that in danger.
That is utter nonsense and fear mongering and the people trying to use
it to scare people know it.

First, regardless of McCain’s
personal opinions there is no indication that overturning Roe is in any
way a priority or even a desire for him. Secondly, no President has
been more outspoken against Roe and has made his preferences more
clearly known than Bush and even with two conservative Supreme Court
appointees it didn’t happen, has never come close to happening, and
wouldn’t happen under McCain. And for a variety of reasons, not the
least of which is that even Scalia
has expressed a great reluctance to overturn long standing
precedent,especially that which would cause great social upheaval
unless there were great, immediate and pressing concerns.And then there
is always the issue of who would have standing to bring a direct
challenge to Roe and the answer is practically no one or it would have
happened already.

Roe is no concern in a McCain presidency.

Aside from Obama’s unfitness for the job (which is reason enough) the other compelling reason for an Obama defeat is to reform and fumigate the Democratic Party which Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Chuck Schumer and others has turned into the Obamacratic Party which becomes more and more of an embarrassment every day as Pelosi’s disastrous performance with the bailout bill proved.

Obama is the nominee because of a dishonest primary in which these same people, along with the press, did everything possible to sell Obama
as the nominee and do it dishonestly as they knew how including rigging
the roll call vote violating every Democratic Party rule and procedure
in the process.

Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and every member of the DNC who engineered and went along with fixing the process need to go. Those who won’t resign (though I think many will after an Obama
defeat) need to have their power and their base removed, so the that
the Democratic Party can air itself out. And the only way that can
happen is with an Obama loss. And the bigger the better.

And
with McCain promising that he will only serve one term, that becomes
even more attractive. In 2012 there will be two new candidates running
even if McCain wins

Twenty-five years ago the Republican Party
got through Watergate. This year the Democratic Party has to go through
Fumigate and it can start with a big Obama loss. And on the morning of November 5th,
with a McCain victory, the majority of Democrats can wake up, open the
windows and let in the fresh air. And they can feel good about the
night before and McCain winning. Even if its only a one night stand.

NOTE:
Democrats For Principle Before Party has one commercial finished and
two more in the works opposing Obama to be run in battleground states
like Pa, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. The first one can be seen directly
under this post. You can contribute to the airing of these commercials
by clicking on the “donate” button below.

Democratic Party Reform: A Just Cause

I have been persuaded by a colleague that I deeply respect, trust, and admire, to wholeheartedly embrace the Democratic Party reform movement. I must say at the outset that my gut instinct, in the wake of my experience in Denver this past August, was to do what I could to destroy the Democratic Party. It is a cancer that has spawned a fascist tumor called Obama. The graft and corruption of many of its politicians on Capitol Hill is playing a very prominent roll in the economic crisis we are currently facing, which is why it is a complete joke that Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have anything to do with any “solution” regarding this mess. It’s deconstructing of its own democratic machinations, and its overt approval of voter fraud, voter suppression, violation of First Amendment rights, and voter intimidation is frightening, and should scare the hell out of every American.

When it comes to these situations I fall in line with John Adams who said that once a political institution assails liberty it cannot be redeemed:

Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.  

I also fall in line with Jefferson who believed that no matter the intentions and spirit of a government, eventually it would be corrupted:

 

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. 

We are at the nexus of those congruent thoughts.

 

I must admit that I am cynical regarding the prospect of wresting the Democratic Party from the cesspoolers who have laid waste to its values. I will name the most prominent players again: Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Alexis Herman, Don Fowler, Carol Fowler, Alice Germond, Leah Daughtry. I am an idealist. If you say you stand for something I expect you to mean it, which is why I never at any time supported, or entertained supporting Obama, as he has never stood for any of the things he claims to represent; least of all hope and change…at least not the change I want or believe in. But I must put my cynicism regarding reform aside (not an easy task I can assure you) because the need of the nation absolutely requires that something be done. To leave the Democratic Party to fester on the fascist, anti-constitutional bender it has been on since 2004, to allow it to continue to operate on the American political stage in its current state is, at best, irresponsible.

What do I want the Democratic Party to stand for?

1. Passage of the ERA
2. Equal Protections for ALL under the Constitution, including LGBTs (civil rights is not a black struggle: it’s a human thing).
3. One Person One Vote
4. Universal Healthcare
5. An affordable and accessible college education
6. No caucuses
7. Winner take all primaries
8. A constitutional government that represents the will of the people, not political expediency, while safeguarding the rights of the minority.
9. Fiscal responsibility represented by balanced federal budgets.
10. Energy independence gained through renewable sources that do not pollute the planet; a truly green economy.
11. Government that does not impede entrepreneurial spirit, but also does not reward economic inequity.
12. Government that protects the freedom of expression of the people’s will.
13. Government that aggressively pursues peace, is vigilant against those that would do us harm, and goes to war to defend the defenseless in just cause.
14. Reproductive freedom; which means protecting the choice a woman makes whether it be terminating her pregnancy, or carrying it to term. This plank also includes supporting planned parenthood, adoption advocacy, birth control education, and civic support for women, particularly teenagers who chose to have their child.
15. Protection of the social safety net.
16. Advocacy for young children including early childhood education and environmental defense.
17. The right of privacy and habeas corpus.
18. A staunch and unyielding defense of President Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.

This is just the beginning. What would you like to see a real Democratic Party represent? Add to the list.

 

cross-posted at Oh…my valve!