Endorsements
Obama for president. No on 94-97. Yes on A. Our complete endorsements for the Feb. 5 election
President, Democrat
BARACK OBAMA
This is now essentially a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, and no matter how it comes down, it's a historic moment: neither of the front-runners for the White House (and by any standard, the Democratic nominee starts off as the front-runner) is a white man. And frankly, the nation could do a lot worse than either President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama.
But on the issues, and because he's a force for a new generation of political activism, our choice is Obama.
Obama's life story is inspirational, and his speeches are the stuff of political legend. He can rouse a crowd and generate excitement like no presidential candidate has in many, many years. He has, almost single-handedly, caused thousands of young people to get involved for the first time in a major political campaign.
The cost of his soaring rhetoric is a disappointing lack of specific plans. It can be hard at times to tell exactly what Obama stands for, exactly how he plans to carry out his ambitious goals.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
His stump speeches are riddled with words like change and exhortations to a new approach to politics, but he doesn't talk much, for example, about how to address the gap between the rich and the poor, or how to tackle urban crime and poverty, or whether Israel should stop building settlements in the occupied territories.
In fact, our biggest problem with Obama is that he talks as if all the nation needs to do is come together in some sort of grand coalition of Democrats and Republicans, of "blue states and red states." But some of us have no interest in making common cause with the religious right or Dick Cheney or Halliburton or Don Fisher. There are forces and interests in the United States that need to be opposed, defeated, consigned to the dustbin of history, and for all of Obama's talk of unity, we worry that he lacks the interest in or ability to take on a tough, bloody fight against an entrenched political foe.
Still, when you look at his positions, he's on the right track. He wants to raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security payments (right now high earners don't pay Social Security taxes on income over $97,000 a year). He wants to cut taxes for working-class families and pay for it by letting the George W. Bush tax cuts on the rich expire (that's not enough, but it's a start). He wants to double fuel-economy standards. His health care plan isn't perfect, but it's about the same as all the Democrats offer.
And he's always been against the war.
It's hard to overstate the importance of that. Obama spoke out against the invasion when even most Democrats were afraid to, so he has some credibility when he says he's going to withdraw all troops within 16 months and establish no permanent US bases in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton has far more extensive experience than Obama (and people who say her years in the White House don't count have no concept of the role she played in Bill Clinton's administration). We are convinced that deep down she has liberal instincts. But that's what's so infuriating: since the day she won election to the US Senate, Clinton has been triangulating, shaping her positions, especially on foreign policy, in an effort to put her close to the political ...
( 25 comments | Comment on this article )
Ronuloid on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM
As a Ron Paul supporter I want to thank you for your endorsement. However, I want to address some misconceptions that you have about him.
First of all, he does not oppose the "taxes that we need to make civil society function and the government regulations that are essential to protecting the most powerless members of society." He opposes the income tax, which is unconstitutional and was never legally ratified. He does not oppose corporate taxes, gasoline and other use taxes. He is for a sharp reduction in the size of government, this is true. Thus he would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and the Deportment of Education. gots in the Magna Carta and Adam Smith's economic theories to the Bill of Rights, it's clear the United States was founded on a social compact that libertarians too often seem to deny. And Paul compounds these ills in the one area in which he departs from the libertarians: he doesn't support federal abortion rights. He's been associated with some statements that are racially insensitive (to say the least). He clearly shouldn't be president.
First of all, he does not oppose the "taxes that we need to make civil society function and the government regulations that are essential to protecting the most powerless members of society." He opposes the income tax, which is unconstitutional and was never legally ratified. He does not oppose corporate taxes, gasoline and other use taxes. He is for a sharp reduction in the size of government, this is true. Thus he would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and the Deportment of Education. gots in the Magna Carta and Adam Smith's economic theories to the Bill of Rights, it's clear the United States was founded on a social compact that libertarians too often seem to deny. And Paul compounds these ills in the one area in which he departs from the libertarians: he doesn't support federal abortion rights. He's been associated with some statements that are racially insensitive (to say the least). He clearly shouldn't be president.
Ronuloid on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Your system went crazy on me. That is why my previous comments are incomplete. Let me just say this. If he is so much for not "protecting the powerless" as you say, why does he want to pardon people in jail for drug possession? Why is he against the death penalty? Why does he want to legalize marijuana for medical use? Why does he want to end the war on drugs? I think the opposite is true. There has never been a candidate more concerned with protecting the powerless. That is why I will proudly vote for Ron Paul for President!!!
Andrew76 on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Ummm.... your reasoning that Ron Paul does not understand Adam Smith, makes no sense whatsoever. Ron Paul, who is running for the repub. ticket, not the libertarian ticket, has perhaps the most informed understanding of Adam Smith of any politician of the last 35 years.
Furthermore, if you're looking for an anti-war candidate, Ron Paul is simply peerless. Obama? Please. He won't even take a NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE off the table with Iran. Are you kidding me?
As to "racially insensitive statements," which one are you referring to? The one where he proclaims MLK and Ghandi as his heroes? Or, surely you must mean the time when he, as medical doctor (OB/GYN), worked virtually for free, and voluntarily so at a charity hospital in Texas for poor minorities for a number of years? Or, perhaps you mean when the Austin, TX head of the NAACP came to his defense this week?
Oh, I know what you mean: when he vowed to pardon all non-violent drug users in the U.S., the VAST MAJORITY of which are young black males - sure this was his most "racist" statement ever?
Add to that, that he thinks gay people should have a right to marry? And, poor people should keep all the money they make? Wow, what a terrible guy.
HILLARY AND OBAMA WILL NOT END THE WAR, THEY HAVE ALREADY SAID SO!!!!! Is anyone paying attention??? RON PAUL WILL. HE HAS A TEN TERM CONGRESS RECORD THAT PROVES HE IS A MAN OF HIS WORD. HE RECORD IS UNTOUCHABLE. Please, look it up.
If you care about this country and your freedoms as an individual, whether it's what you say, who you marry, what you smoke, or where your money goes, then you will vote for this amazing man. [link]
Please, do not play this ridiculous and insulting game of pandering to emotional hot-button issues, and instead focus on facts. Dr. Ron Paul, whether you agree with him or not, is a good, honest man.
Furthermore, if you're looking for an anti-war candidate, Ron Paul is simply peerless. Obama? Please. He won't even take a NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE off the table with Iran. Are you kidding me?
As to "racially insensitive statements," which one are you referring to? The one where he proclaims MLK and Ghandi as his heroes? Or, surely you must mean the time when he, as medical doctor (OB/GYN), worked virtually for free, and voluntarily so at a charity hospital in Texas for poor minorities for a number of years? Or, perhaps you mean when the Austin, TX head of the NAACP came to his defense this week?
Oh, I know what you mean: when he vowed to pardon all non-violent drug users in the U.S., the VAST MAJORITY of which are young black males - sure this was his most "racist" statement ever?
Add to that, that he thinks gay people should have a right to marry? And, poor people should keep all the money they make? Wow, what a terrible guy.
HILLARY AND OBAMA WILL NOT END THE WAR, THEY HAVE ALREADY SAID SO!!!!! Is anyone paying attention??? RON PAUL WILL. HE HAS A TEN TERM CONGRESS RECORD THAT PROVES HE IS A MAN OF HIS WORD. HE RECORD IS UNTOUCHABLE. Please, look it up.
If you care about this country and your freedoms as an individual, whether it's what you say, who you marry, what you smoke, or where your money goes, then you will vote for this amazing man. [link]
Please, do not play this ridiculous and insulting game of pandering to emotional hot-button issues, and instead focus on facts. Dr. Ron Paul, whether you agree with him or not, is a good, honest man.
general on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 06:51 AM
As a Paul supporter it's tempting to criticize the misconceptions of Paul found even in this endorsement. But in this case, (and I say this as a hardcore Paul supporter) it's more important to observe what the article's slime on Dennis Kucinich really means.
In fewer words the article says "Kucinich isn't going to win, therefore his positions aren't worth considering" and proceeds to endorse the neocon Obama (yes, arch-neocon Robert Kagan's Washington Post endorsement clearly describes what makes Obama indeed a neoconservative). So the SFBG endorsed a neocon Democrat over a principled anti-war candidate, simply on the basis of "electability."
It is not your $%#$%# job to decide who is electable! It is WE THE PEOPLE's job to decide who is electable. The media's only job is to report a candidate's positions, background, record, and ties to lobby groups. At that they have been utterly derelict.
Shortly after he dropped out, I asked my Dad why he never complained that the media never informed him what Chris Dodd stood for. Dodd's platform was totally unremarkable, but the point is that nobody was ever even told who he was or what he stood for. Dad sheepishly admitted it was his own fault he never knew.
Well, it isn't entirely his fault because IT'S THE MEDIA'S $$%(*@% JOB TO TELL PEOPLE and instead they spent 10 months gossiping about polls and telling the public how to think.
A friend of mine contemplated suing mass media companies for false advertising for calling themselves "news." I hope he does.
This election is about one thing and one thing only: whether or not the public will tolerate the mass media dictating their opinion. Kucinich's downfall against three bloodthirsty maniacs is a tragic example, although I must say, Paul, with his far more advanced understanding of the economy, is the only choice that may save our country yet.
So I guess I should be happy that this paper endorsed Paul at all, though obviously I am not.
In fewer words the article says "Kucinich isn't going to win, therefore his positions aren't worth considering" and proceeds to endorse the neocon Obama (yes, arch-neocon Robert Kagan's Washington Post endorsement clearly describes what makes Obama indeed a neoconservative). So the SFBG endorsed a neocon Democrat over a principled anti-war candidate, simply on the basis of "electability."
It is not your $%#$%# job to decide who is electable! It is WE THE PEOPLE's job to decide who is electable. The media's only job is to report a candidate's positions, background, record, and ties to lobby groups. At that they have been utterly derelict.
Shortly after he dropped out, I asked my Dad why he never complained that the media never informed him what Chris Dodd stood for. Dodd's platform was totally unremarkable, but the point is that nobody was ever even told who he was or what he stood for. Dad sheepishly admitted it was his own fault he never knew.
Well, it isn't entirely his fault because IT'S THE MEDIA'S $$%(*@% JOB TO TELL PEOPLE and instead they spent 10 months gossiping about polls and telling the public how to think.
A friend of mine contemplated suing mass media companies for false advertising for calling themselves "news." I hope he does.
This election is about one thing and one thing only: whether or not the public will tolerate the mass media dictating their opinion. Kucinich's downfall against three bloodthirsty maniacs is a tragic example, although I must say, Paul, with his far more advanced understanding of the economy, is the only choice that may save our country yet.
So I guess I should be happy that this paper endorsed Paul at all, though obviously I am not.
Republicae on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 07:08 AM
I am constantly amazed at the dislocation of information not only concerning Ron Paul, but the lack of understanding about Majoritarianism that plagues the ideologies of both the left and the right.
Ron Paul would hope that we would eventually understand that as long as anyone depends on their minority status to determine their rights then the majority will only recognize a degree of rights based solely upon a specified set of what the majority considers allowable and therefore, contingent freedoms. In other words, the majority will always restrict the rights of the minority unless the minority can base their rights upon something other than the specific attributes and or definitions of that minority.
The government is not inclined to, nor does it obligate itself to ensure the Rights of any person in this country although it was created to protect the Rights of every individual. It is up to the individual to combatively insist and aggressively pursue his or her Rights before the government. It is People, first and foremost, that form the State Republics through acting on a cooperative and voluntary basis, but with an extreme prejudice toward their Rights. It has been said that the majority opinion is the true ruler; if that is the case then perhaps it is time for us all to become the majority and not base our Rights upon a specific status as a minority. This does not preclude any attributes that a person has who is a member of a minority or their identity, but in the eyes of the majority and therefore the law, a minority is only a minority and will remain as such as long as they base their Rights solely upon their minority status.
The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority “lords over” the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority’s large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never “grant” them the same degree of rights as the majority.
The established elite ruling class, the governing “gentry” fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the “State” desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the “majority” holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.
The “State” readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of “civil rights”. In such a “democratic” system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The “State” will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.
It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but desired within democratic majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the “State”.
Ron Paul would hope that we would eventually understand that as long as anyone depends on their minority status to determine their rights then the majority will only recognize a degree of rights based solely upon a specified set of what the majority considers allowable and therefore, contingent freedoms. In other words, the majority will always restrict the rights of the minority unless the minority can base their rights upon something other than the specific attributes and or definitions of that minority.
The government is not inclined to, nor does it obligate itself to ensure the Rights of any person in this country although it was created to protect the Rights of every individual. It is up to the individual to combatively insist and aggressively pursue his or her Rights before the government. It is People, first and foremost, that form the State Republics through acting on a cooperative and voluntary basis, but with an extreme prejudice toward their Rights. It has been said that the majority opinion is the true ruler; if that is the case then perhaps it is time for us all to become the majority and not base our Rights upon a specific status as a minority. This does not preclude any attributes that a person has who is a member of a minority or their identity, but in the eyes of the majority and therefore the law, a minority is only a minority and will remain as such as long as they base their Rights solely upon their minority status.
The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority “lords over” the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority’s large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never “grant” them the same degree of rights as the majority.
The established elite ruling class, the governing “gentry” fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the “State” desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the “majority” holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.
The “State” readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of “civil rights”. In such a “democratic” system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The “State” will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.
It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but desired within democratic majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the “State”.
general on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 07:16 AM
Still trying to figure out why my first comment (this is my second) only seems to appear on page 1.
At any rate, upon second read, I'm a lot more furious about the mis-treatment of Paul. If one needs any evidence of mass media conspiracy to deceive the public, one need look no further than the coverage of the Paul campaign.
So here the SFBG slanders Paul with the statement "[Paul is] associated with some statements that a racially insensitive (to say the least)."
No, that's not saying the least at all, in fact it's over-the-top slander-by-association tactics. They knew the words were not his so they stoop to saying "associated with."
It's a sad testament to what our media has become. Fortunately, nobody's buying it anymore.
At any rate, upon second read, I'm a lot more furious about the mis-treatment of Paul. If one needs any evidence of mass media conspiracy to deceive the public, one need look no further than the coverage of the Paul campaign.
So here the SFBG slanders Paul with the statement "[Paul is] associated with some statements that a racially insensitive (to say the least)."
No, that's not saying the least at all, in fact it's over-the-top slander-by-association tactics. They knew the words were not his so they stoop to saying "associated with."
It's a sad testament to what our media has become. Fortunately, nobody's buying it anymore.
Republicae on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Also, Ron Paul is the only candidate that both understands the serf-producing effects of this fiat monetary system that has been imposed upon the people of this country and the effects of that system on this people. We all talk about poverty and yet, for the most part, we tend to treat the symptoms and not the causes. One of the primary causes for poverty and a declining middle class in this country is the monetary policy and system that is forced upon us all in this country.
The Entrenchment Candidates of both the Republican and Democratic Parties will do absolutely nothing to change the status quo or fight the system; they are simply too indebted to that system and are too invested in the status quo to make the real, substantial and drastic changes needed.
The primary reason for the benefits of sound or commodity specie is that it maintains the measure of wealth or value, whereas a fiat monetary system is, by its very nature, an inflationary system that must be constantly expanded in order to maintain economic growth. The problem with that is eventually the irreversible debt upon which the system is created will consume the very economy that is built upon the debt. In such a system, the debt and the supply of fiat money is proportionally equal and the debt can never be paid off or paid down without contracting the economy. The problem is exacerbated by the addition of an interest obligation on top of the principle debt which only compounds the entire debt burden on the economy.
Now, the problem gets very personal when the fiat monetary system is expanded to increase economic growth and the act of inflation causes the devaluation of the currency itself, this debases the purchase power of the currency and although it appears that prices are increasing the fact of the matter is that the money is losing its measure of value.
For instance: today it takes $21,230.00 to purchase what $1,000.00 bought in 1913. The value of the Federal Reserve Note compared to the 1913 Greenback Dollar has been effectively decreased by 99.952896845%. Now, for modern comparison sake, let’s take an hourly wage today and take the actual purchasing power of a 1970 Federal Reserve Note in comparison. Today, let’s say you make $15.00 per hour, in terms of real purchasing power in 1970 Federal Reserve Notes; your $15.00 per hour today will buy the same as $2.77 per hour did in 1970. An annual wage at $15.00 pre hour calculates to a gross of $31,200.00 has the purchasing power of $5,759.72 did in 1970.
As you can see, the fruit of our labor has been drained from us; we are basically turning into a feudal economy where we pay peonage to the “Lords of the Manor”.
VOTE RON PAUL...STOP THIS FEUDAL SYSTEM...STOP THE THEFT...STOP THE POVERTY MAKERS!!!
The Entrenchment Candidates of both the Republican and Democratic Parties will do absolutely nothing to change the status quo or fight the system; they are simply too indebted to that system and are too invested in the status quo to make the real, substantial and drastic changes needed.
The primary reason for the benefits of sound or commodity specie is that it maintains the measure of wealth or value, whereas a fiat monetary system is, by its very nature, an inflationary system that must be constantly expanded in order to maintain economic growth. The problem with that is eventually the irreversible debt upon which the system is created will consume the very economy that is built upon the debt. In such a system, the debt and the supply of fiat money is proportionally equal and the debt can never be paid off or paid down without contracting the economy. The problem is exacerbated by the addition of an interest obligation on top of the principle debt which only compounds the entire debt burden on the economy.
Now, the problem gets very personal when the fiat monetary system is expanded to increase economic growth and the act of inflation causes the devaluation of the currency itself, this debases the purchase power of the currency and although it appears that prices are increasing the fact of the matter is that the money is losing its measure of value.
For instance: today it takes $21,230.00 to purchase what $1,000.00 bought in 1913. The value of the Federal Reserve Note compared to the 1913 Greenback Dollar has been effectively decreased by 99.952896845%. Now, for modern comparison sake, let’s take an hourly wage today and take the actual purchasing power of a 1970 Federal Reserve Note in comparison. Today, let’s say you make $15.00 per hour, in terms of real purchasing power in 1970 Federal Reserve Notes; your $15.00 per hour today will buy the same as $2.77 per hour did in 1970. An annual wage at $15.00 pre hour calculates to a gross of $31,200.00 has the purchasing power of $5,759.72 did in 1970.
As you can see, the fruit of our labor has been drained from us; we are basically turning into a feudal economy where we pay peonage to the “Lords of the Manor”.
VOTE RON PAUL...STOP THIS FEUDAL SYSTEM...STOP THE THEFT...STOP THE POVERTY MAKERS!!!
Republicae on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 08:14 AM
Our nation has been duped by those who seek to form little more than a modern Feudal State with A Productive Debt-Serf Collective. The ideal system of checks and balances has been effectively neutralized over the decades to allow such a Feudal System to gradually arise and enslave the people, especially the working men and women of this nation. What is promoted as the socialist ideal is nothing more than a Feudalistic System that has an Elite Minority seeking to "lord" over the population.
During the period that the Federal Reserve Act was passed, so too was the 16th and 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Of course, many people tend to realize that the 16th Amendment (Progressive Income Tax) and the Federal Reserve Act have not been in the best interest of the People, but few realize that the 17th Amendment has caused major damage to this former Constitutional Republic. It is strange that the same politicians didn’t attempt to amend the Constitution to include the Federal Reserve Act and deny Congress the authority to coin money; perhaps they thought themselves lucky to “ratify” the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Section 3 of the Constitution states:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies."
Now, there was a very good reason why the Founding Fathers placed the Senators outside the direct electoral process and placed them within a framework of indirect elections. By doing this, the Founders knew that they were placing yet another level of checks and balances over the government. They sought to keep the balance of power between the State Republics and the federal branches of the Executive, Legislature and Judicial. In fact, they wanted to be sure that the Rights and Interests of the State Republics were maintained while keeping a very close eye on the federal branches. They also wanted the Senate to be comprised of men who were mature, possessing a higher degree of experience and wisdom then those directly elected to the House of Representatives.
The Senate was to be insolated from influences of direct politics, financial corruption and whims of the public. Senators were to answer indirectly to the People through their respective State Legislatures. It really was a stroke of absolute genius; too bad the same corrupt officials that brought us the Federal Reserve Act and Progressive Income Tax eliminated this extremely valuable check on power and abuse.
In 1787, John Dickerson, delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the State of Delaware spoke about the power of this vital check on governmental power: “ The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency is indispensable, it will produce the collision between the different authorities that should be wished for in order to check each other.”
The Senate, appointed by the respective State Legislatures, also provided a very strong barrier to potential mistakes made by the Citizens of each State Republic. James Madison in the Federalist #63, said that indirect elections would be a “defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions and would blend stability with Liberty.”
The Power and Rights of the State Republics, through the direction and guidance of each State Legislature, would be the only influence on their respective Senators. The Senate would dutifully represent the best interest of the State Republics and therefore, the Citizens of each State. It was, to say the least, an ideal program to maintain the balance of power and curtail potential usurpations of the federal government over the States and their People.
Of course, the 17th Amendment was touted as a measure to eliminate undue influences on the Senate from special interests yet it had the opposite effect.
With the passage of the 16th, 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act, the government increased its reach and power over the People. There are some who question the validity of the actual ratification of the above-mentioned Amendments, but time and space restrict us from that subject at this time.
At one time, the power of taxation was only on the State Level, with revenues being submitted to the federal government to fund the various limited functions of government, but in 1913 all of that changed, in fact it was all reversed. Each of these pieces of legislations, more than any other, allowed the growth of the federal government beyond the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution.
Now, although the State Republics have been neutered by the overwhelming reach and power of the federal authority, they stand as potentially the only viable medium for the People of this Country to regain control over their government. Within the Halls of the State Legislatures abides the some of the last remaining remnants of Constitutional Power, sitting dormant and un-utilized by those who have either forgotten their power or who have played their respective political party plays far too long.
If We, the People of these United States of America are ever to regain Our Sovereignty, I have a feeling that it will only come when we retake the Halls of Power within the individual State Houses and Governorships. It is not enough to simply support certain run-of-the-mill Republican or Democratic candidates; we must field candidates who are dedicated to the ideals of Constitutionalism and the goal of restoring the Republic to the People.
Most people, especially our politicians have forgotten, or chose to ignore the fact that it is absolutely indispensable to the well-being of a Free People that each person enjoy the full benefits of Liberty, not as would be granted or allowed by government, but that Liberty which is Guaranteed by Providential Right alone! All demands upon us for any part of our Liberty or even our substance, which is not given by our own consent amounts to nothing more than governmental allowance of a measure of contingent freedom.
Freedom which is contingent upon the allowances of the government is no Freedom at all, indeed it amounts to little more than coercive tyranny and should not be allowed to stand. The People of this Nation are neither the property nor the wards of this government; the government is the ward and possession of the People. The correct role of this government should be viewed and maintained as nothing more than a tool, created and used to promote and secure the ability of the People to live their lives in Liberty and Freedom. The primary function and really the only reason for the existence of this government is proclaimed within the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and explained within the Constitution of the United States.
Any man who values his Freedom, indeed his Life, must demand of the government the full acceptance of his Natural Right, unfettered by governmental intervention or coercion. Without such a demand by the People, government will always gravitate toward an arbitrary will and application of law to the point that neither the law nor the Constitution will remain without being stripped of all vestiges of Liberty. Within the writings of Our Founding Fathers are solutions; embedded within the Founding Documents are principles which provide both wisdom and guidance for the proper role of government, to be used as a tool, an instrument that forms the foundation of Our ability to live Free.
Our ability to live Free is not, nor was it ever intended to relieve the responsibility of each man to determine his own direction in life, nor to provide a safety net for those lives. Our primary Freedom is the Freedom from government intervention and interference. Under the Founding philosophy, the political Sovereignty exists only in and through the People themselves, not in a governmental body. Until that Sovereignty is restored to the People, we will continue to live under a state of existence no different than any other person living under any other state. We will suffer the same fate as all others, differing little from any other person who must play second fiddle to their state ideology and the force of coercion. Currently, this Nation has regressed into a pre-revolutionary state, one where the government is seen as the end all be all, and end all, the final authority to grant or abridge any Right to its Citizens.
In this country, we are experiencing such a shocking change in the manner in which the government sees itself and its positional authority over the People and it appears that it is not an accidental sway of tyranny that grips this land, but an intentional push toward authoritarianism. Government was only instituted to secure the Natural Liberty of the Individual, that qualification for its existence has not changed nor diminished, yet when such a responsibility has been abandoned by government, then it is the Right of the People to seek other arrangements which will ensure the security of their Liberty.
This government has forsaken “Just Power” in favor of “Raw Power”. It has lost it sense that the Unalienable Rights of the People are inviolate and that the Protection of those Rights is the primary obligation the government has to the People. No individual, no political party, no class of people, no authority, and no government have the right to deprive the People of Liberty. For government is the trustee of the Common Liberty of the People as long as it remains trustworthy of that post! When a government no longer is willing or able to be entrusted with safeguarding the Liberty of the People then it should no longer be considered as a legitimate authority and ultimately it must be treated as an Enemy of the People.
This government does not have the lawful right to issue any law, arbitrarily, that it pleases, in order to bind us and nullify Our Natural Liberty. Consent is not the same as Representation, for all Representation must come from the directive of the People. Although at one point in our history, the directive of the People was the power and the authority of the vote, it is no longer the case. Now, it appears that those who hold office do so at the will of special interests, corporations, even secret and foreign influences.
We have become nothing more than subjects to the government, and our lives are now regulated and controlled by its will, coerced to comply by penalty of law and governmental decree. It should be beyond all measure of patience that the government should assume such power over us, to impose its will and domination.
If government can assume power over our lives, our properties, indeed over our labor and the fruit of our labor, then it can assume authority for any purpose that it designs, without our consent. “For if government can take away even one penny from us against our wills, then they can indeed take away everything!”
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson
During the period that the Federal Reserve Act was passed, so too was the 16th and 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Of course, many people tend to realize that the 16th Amendment (Progressive Income Tax) and the Federal Reserve Act have not been in the best interest of the People, but few realize that the 17th Amendment has caused major damage to this former Constitutional Republic. It is strange that the same politicians didn’t attempt to amend the Constitution to include the Federal Reserve Act and deny Congress the authority to coin money; perhaps they thought themselves lucky to “ratify” the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Section 3 of the Constitution states:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies."
Now, there was a very good reason why the Founding Fathers placed the Senators outside the direct electoral process and placed them within a framework of indirect elections. By doing this, the Founders knew that they were placing yet another level of checks and balances over the government. They sought to keep the balance of power between the State Republics and the federal branches of the Executive, Legislature and Judicial. In fact, they wanted to be sure that the Rights and Interests of the State Republics were maintained while keeping a very close eye on the federal branches. They also wanted the Senate to be comprised of men who were mature, possessing a higher degree of experience and wisdom then those directly elected to the House of Representatives.
The Senate was to be insolated from influences of direct politics, financial corruption and whims of the public. Senators were to answer indirectly to the People through their respective State Legislatures. It really was a stroke of absolute genius; too bad the same corrupt officials that brought us the Federal Reserve Act and Progressive Income Tax eliminated this extremely valuable check on power and abuse.
In 1787, John Dickerson, delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the State of Delaware spoke about the power of this vital check on governmental power: “ The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency is indispensable, it will produce the collision between the different authorities that should be wished for in order to check each other.”
The Senate, appointed by the respective State Legislatures, also provided a very strong barrier to potential mistakes made by the Citizens of each State Republic. James Madison in the Federalist #63, said that indirect elections would be a “defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions and would blend stability with Liberty.”
The Power and Rights of the State Republics, through the direction and guidance of each State Legislature, would be the only influence on their respective Senators. The Senate would dutifully represent the best interest of the State Republics and therefore, the Citizens of each State. It was, to say the least, an ideal program to maintain the balance of power and curtail potential usurpations of the federal government over the States and their People.
Of course, the 17th Amendment was touted as a measure to eliminate undue influences on the Senate from special interests yet it had the opposite effect.
With the passage of the 16th, 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act, the government increased its reach and power over the People. There are some who question the validity of the actual ratification of the above-mentioned Amendments, but time and space restrict us from that subject at this time.
At one time, the power of taxation was only on the State Level, with revenues being submitted to the federal government to fund the various limited functions of government, but in 1913 all of that changed, in fact it was all reversed. Each of these pieces of legislations, more than any other, allowed the growth of the federal government beyond the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution.
Now, although the State Republics have been neutered by the overwhelming reach and power of the federal authority, they stand as potentially the only viable medium for the People of this Country to regain control over their government. Within the Halls of the State Legislatures abides the some of the last remaining remnants of Constitutional Power, sitting dormant and un-utilized by those who have either forgotten their power or who have played their respective political party plays far too long.
If We, the People of these United States of America are ever to regain Our Sovereignty, I have a feeling that it will only come when we retake the Halls of Power within the individual State Houses and Governorships. It is not enough to simply support certain run-of-the-mill Republican or Democratic candidates; we must field candidates who are dedicated to the ideals of Constitutionalism and the goal of restoring the Republic to the People.
Most people, especially our politicians have forgotten, or chose to ignore the fact that it is absolutely indispensable to the well-being of a Free People that each person enjoy the full benefits of Liberty, not as would be granted or allowed by government, but that Liberty which is Guaranteed by Providential Right alone! All demands upon us for any part of our Liberty or even our substance, which is not given by our own consent amounts to nothing more than governmental allowance of a measure of contingent freedom.
Freedom which is contingent upon the allowances of the government is no Freedom at all, indeed it amounts to little more than coercive tyranny and should not be allowed to stand. The People of this Nation are neither the property nor the wards of this government; the government is the ward and possession of the People. The correct role of this government should be viewed and maintained as nothing more than a tool, created and used to promote and secure the ability of the People to live their lives in Liberty and Freedom. The primary function and really the only reason for the existence of this government is proclaimed within the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and explained within the Constitution of the United States.
Any man who values his Freedom, indeed his Life, must demand of the government the full acceptance of his Natural Right, unfettered by governmental intervention or coercion. Without such a demand by the People, government will always gravitate toward an arbitrary will and application of law to the point that neither the law nor the Constitution will remain without being stripped of all vestiges of Liberty. Within the writings of Our Founding Fathers are solutions; embedded within the Founding Documents are principles which provide both wisdom and guidance for the proper role of government, to be used as a tool, an instrument that forms the foundation of Our ability to live Free.
Our ability to live Free is not, nor was it ever intended to relieve the responsibility of each man to determine his own direction in life, nor to provide a safety net for those lives. Our primary Freedom is the Freedom from government intervention and interference. Under the Founding philosophy, the political Sovereignty exists only in and through the People themselves, not in a governmental body. Until that Sovereignty is restored to the People, we will continue to live under a state of existence no different than any other person living under any other state. We will suffer the same fate as all others, differing little from any other person who must play second fiddle to their state ideology and the force of coercion. Currently, this Nation has regressed into a pre-revolutionary state, one where the government is seen as the end all be all, and end all, the final authority to grant or abridge any Right to its Citizens.
In this country, we are experiencing such a shocking change in the manner in which the government sees itself and its positional authority over the People and it appears that it is not an accidental sway of tyranny that grips this land, but an intentional push toward authoritarianism. Government was only instituted to secure the Natural Liberty of the Individual, that qualification for its existence has not changed nor diminished, yet when such a responsibility has been abandoned by government, then it is the Right of the People to seek other arrangements which will ensure the security of their Liberty.
This government has forsaken “Just Power” in favor of “Raw Power”. It has lost it sense that the Unalienable Rights of the People are inviolate and that the Protection of those Rights is the primary obligation the government has to the People. No individual, no political party, no class of people, no authority, and no government have the right to deprive the People of Liberty. For government is the trustee of the Common Liberty of the People as long as it remains trustworthy of that post! When a government no longer is willing or able to be entrusted with safeguarding the Liberty of the People then it should no longer be considered as a legitimate authority and ultimately it must be treated as an Enemy of the People.
This government does not have the lawful right to issue any law, arbitrarily, that it pleases, in order to bind us and nullify Our Natural Liberty. Consent is not the same as Representation, for all Representation must come from the directive of the People. Although at one point in our history, the directive of the People was the power and the authority of the vote, it is no longer the case. Now, it appears that those who hold office do so at the will of special interests, corporations, even secret and foreign influences.
We have become nothing more than subjects to the government, and our lives are now regulated and controlled by its will, coerced to comply by penalty of law and governmental decree. It should be beyond all measure of patience that the government should assume such power over us, to impose its will and domination.
If government can assume power over our lives, our properties, indeed over our labor and the fruit of our labor, then it can assume authority for any purpose that it designs, without our consent. “For if government can take away even one penny from us against our wills, then they can indeed take away everything!”
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson
robotsworld on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 08:30 AM
Vote for Change? Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners
Here's the link with different options audio/video/transcript.
[link]
Here's a quote from transcript on the show democracy now aired January 3. Talks about MOST of the candidates
AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama?
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—
AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.
ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.
Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.
Here's the link with different options audio/video/transcript.
[link]
Here's a quote from transcript on the show democracy now aired January 3. Talks about MOST of the candidates
AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama?
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—
AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.
ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.
Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.
robotsworld on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Dear Sirs, Just wanted to CORRECT you in your statement: "He opposes the taxes that we need to make civil society function and the government regulations that are essential to protecting the most powerless members of society. " He ONLY wants to get rid of the "INCOME TAX." The "INCOME TAX." For example, "PROPERTY TAX" pays for your local schools. "GAS TAX" pays for the highways/roads. There are many other taxes that we pay which would "make civil society function and the government regulations that are essential to protecting the most powerless members of society."
If you and your readers would like to research this further and educated yourself (as I have had to do also cause I didn't know much), you can go to this link. It's a documentary with actual people that work/worked for the IRS, tax lawyers, etc.. It explains the IRS, Federal Reserves, EXACTLY how taxes work, the Patriot Act. etc.
Please watch in it's entirety:
[link]
If you and your readers would like to research this further and educated yourself (as I have had to do also cause I didn't know much), you can go to this link. It's a documentary with actual people that work/worked for the IRS, tax lawyers, etc.. It explains the IRS, Federal Reserves, EXACTLY how taxes work, the Patriot Act. etc.
Please watch in it's entirety:
[link]
robotsworld on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Salutations to SFBG and to all readers,
Would you like to know more about how the IRS and the Federal Reserve works?
This is an amazing documentary by Aaron Russo who was born into a Sephardic Jewish family.
He also produced feature films, The Rose, with Bette Midler, Trading Places, starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, and.
Aaron helped create the careers of many legendary performers, such as Led Zeppelin, whom he brought to America for the first time. He also promoted some of the Sixties' most successful rock acts, including The Who, Janis Joplin, The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane.
This is a great place to start if you'd like to know how government works, get a history lesson, and then make an educated vote.
Click here, then pass on to others:
[link]
Would you like to know more about how the IRS and the Federal Reserve works?
This is an amazing documentary by Aaron Russo who was born into a Sephardic Jewish family.
He also produced feature films, The Rose, with Bette Midler, Trading Places, starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, and.
Aaron helped create the careers of many legendary performers, such as Led Zeppelin, whom he brought to America for the first time. He also promoted some of the Sixties' most successful rock acts, including The Who, Janis Joplin, The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane.
This is a great place to start if you'd like to know how government works, get a history lesson, and then make an educated vote.
Click here, then pass on to others:
[link]
marcos on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 10:23 AM
"The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority “lords over” the minority."
This is not true. There are many ways to do democracy which have been introduced after 1789 that protect minority rights. The US has an archaic democratic structure which is in need of a major tune up.
"But the Greens insist on running candidates for president, so we might as well pick the best one."
No, a coalition of the willing in the green party thinks we have to run presidential candidates but many of us who disagree with that strategy have no way to stop them.
-marc
This is not true. There are many ways to do democracy which have been introduced after 1789 that protect minority rights. The US has an archaic democratic structure which is in need of a major tune up.
"But the Greens insist on running candidates for president, so we might as well pick the best one."
No, a coalition of the willing in the green party thinks we have to run presidential candidates but many of us who disagree with that strategy have no way to stop them.
-marc
sfchange on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 10:46 AM
alright, i get it. your publication, like every other "progressive" entity out there, won't endorse kucinich because he can't win. like i said, i understand, i get it. but to not even comment on his candidacy and reason why you aren't considering him is just unfair, misguided and, frankly, ignorant. kucinich is the only candidate who actually stands for the things, 100%, that your publication says it stands for the rest of the year. i'm disgusted. i used to value your endorsements and opinions.
sfchange on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM
i reread and i see that you did, in fact, mention kucinich. thank you for that. i'm saddened to think that if everyone who has "always liked Dennis Kucinich...the only person taking the right positions on almost all of the key issues" isn't willing to vote for him, what chance do we stand to get someone in the white house who actually stands up for progressive values?
Republicae on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Marcos...It appears that you have not researched the vast majority of "democracies". Tell me one which has worked without the exclusions of some minority element in a society?
Historically, democracies usually vote themselves into a progressive tyranny of one sort or another. Our country has devolved into a democracy, but at its founding it was a Republic which, by the way is far more representative than any democracy can be due to the fact that in a democracy the majority always seek to maintain a superior position and use the system to their own advantage.
Once again, usually people in a democracy always tend to vote themselves into chains, either social, economic or political or all three. The minority within a society has little chance within a democracy because the vast scope of powers is retained and used by the majority. The largest voting block always will get its way in a democracy because there are few, if any, safeguards to prevent the gravatation of powers into the hands of the majority.
In a proper Representative Republic, the powers of each group is filtered, diluted, and balanced to form a government that functions on behalf of far more people.
The words of the Founders of this country spoke volumes of wisdom concerning the tendencies found within democracies, none were commendable and for good reason.
“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Jefferson
"... there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison
Historically, democracies usually vote themselves into a progressive tyranny of one sort or another. Our country has devolved into a democracy, but at its founding it was a Republic which, by the way is far more representative than any democracy can be due to the fact that in a democracy the majority always seek to maintain a superior position and use the system to their own advantage.
Once again, usually people in a democracy always tend to vote themselves into chains, either social, economic or political or all three. The minority within a society has little chance within a democracy because the vast scope of powers is retained and used by the majority. The largest voting block always will get its way in a democracy because there are few, if any, safeguards to prevent the gravatation of powers into the hands of the majority.
In a proper Representative Republic, the powers of each group is filtered, diluted, and balanced to form a government that functions on behalf of far more people.
The words of the Founders of this country spoke volumes of wisdom concerning the tendencies found within democracies, none were commendable and for good reason.
“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Jefferson
"... there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison
bgedit on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 06:42 PM
Guys, guys: take it easy. If you like Ron Paul, vote for him.
Our disagreements are largely political,not personal. The Guardian is a liberal paper, and proud of it -- we believe in government, even big government, and we support high income taxes on the rich to pay for an extensive network of public services. Our endorsements reflect that perspective.
I don't want Ron Paul to be president because I LIKE the idea that people who live in the United States should pay taxes on their income. Income taxes are way better than use taxes. I realize the IRS is a mess and the tax code isn't fair, but use taxes are STILL more regressive.
We're almost certainly going to endorse the Democratic nominee in November, because we think any of the Dems would be better than any of the Reps in the race. But we endorsed Ron Paul in the Rep. primary mostly on account of his anti-war stance.
But I'm really glad you all care so much and you took the time to post here, and I hope you continue the debate. That's what our comments section is for.
Tim Redmond
Executive editor
Our disagreements are largely political,not personal. The Guardian is a liberal paper, and proud of it -- we believe in government, even big government, and we support high income taxes on the rich to pay for an extensive network of public services. Our endorsements reflect that perspective.
I don't want Ron Paul to be president because I LIKE the idea that people who live in the United States should pay taxes on their income. Income taxes are way better than use taxes. I realize the IRS is a mess and the tax code isn't fair, but use taxes are STILL more regressive.
We're almost certainly going to endorse the Democratic nominee in November, because we think any of the Dems would be better than any of the Reps in the race. But we endorsed Ron Paul in the Rep. primary mostly on account of his anti-war stance.
But I'm really glad you all care so much and you took the time to post here, and I hope you continue the debate. That's what our comments section is for.
Tim Redmond
Executive editor
woodcut on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 09:18 AM
As a 50+ gay man, I can't vote for Edwards who said his faith won't allow him to support gay marriages. I like Obama but I think Washington would eat him alive at this time. I'm voting for Clinton - she's not perfect but she knows how to play the game. Of course the game is flawed. Question is, which candidate will keep the Republicans HOME on election day?
lavenderliberal on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Obama, eh? Well, I guess the SF Bay Guardian has swallowed the Kool-Aid -- and doesn't give a flip about the way the Obama campaign has thrown gay and lesbian Americans under the bus... and has backed over us, repeatedly. (See: Donnie McClurkin)
marcos on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 01:39 PM
There are no such thing as a "proper representative republic." In the US, it is clear that a majority of the population is lorded over by the filtration system that only allows Democrats and Republicans to serve.
Far from descending into democratic chaos, the US has become subjugated to corporate rule with the Democrat Party actively disempowering average folks.
Obama is a Hamiltonian and that is why he enjoys significant support by business.
I prefer Jefferson as a point of departure if we've got to remain stuck in the first quarter of the nineteenth century for our political groundings.
As far as Ron Paul goes, if you oppose abortion rights, then you're no libertarian. If he folds on that, then what else will he fold on?
Just as Dick Cheney has done more to destroy the US empire than any gaggle of leftists might have hoped to, should a libertarian actually get elected and follow through on libertarian economics and end all subsidy, the flow of oil would stop and industrial capitalism would grind to a halt.
-marc
Far from descending into democratic chaos, the US has become subjugated to corporate rule with the Democrat Party actively disempowering average folks.
Obama is a Hamiltonian and that is why he enjoys significant support by business.
I prefer Jefferson as a point of departure if we've got to remain stuck in the first quarter of the nineteenth century for our political groundings.
As far as Ron Paul goes, if you oppose abortion rights, then you're no libertarian. If he folds on that, then what else will he fold on?
Just as Dick Cheney has done more to destroy the US empire than any gaggle of leftists might have hoped to, should a libertarian actually get elected and follow through on libertarian economics and end all subsidy, the flow of oil would stop and industrial capitalism would grind to a halt.
-marc
sparg83 on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 02:46 PM
I'm glad to read your idea about Prop 94-97 as they were stuck in an uncomfortable place in my mind as I viewed all the commercials on the tube.
Basically I think that gambling isn't the best type of job/workplace to have around and yet the tribes should have some means of booting themselves up after all this time. Barring some kind of proportional economic ratio of "usual jobs" to gaming, I think I just have to judge whether the proposition will benefit enough people or hurt people and long term efforts.
Basically I think that gambling isn't the best type of job/workplace to have around and yet the tribes should have some means of booting themselves up after all this time. Barring some kind of proportional economic ratio of "usual jobs" to gaming, I think I just have to judge whether the proposition will benefit enough people or hurt people and long term efforts.
saliner on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 03:07 PM
This article clarifies exactly how I feel about Hillary and Obama. While I have always been an Obama supporter, I too have had some reservations about his lack of clarity with regards to certain issues.
Thank you for not only breaking down his strengths and weaknesses in a concise manner but reminding me that his shortcomings do not undermine his strength as a candidate. I found the article and endorsements incredibly insightful!
Thank you for not only breaking down his strengths and weaknesses in a concise manner but reminding me that his shortcomings do not undermine his strength as a candidate. I found the article and endorsements incredibly insightful!
jfung79 on Monday, January 21, 2008 at 01:57 PM
The Bay Guardian has missed a chance to make a real difference in the presidential nomination. It's a shame.
Hillary is going to win California. Nothing the Bay Guardian does can change that.
But a SFBG endorsement could have gotten Dennis Kucinich over the 15% vote in San Francisco and Oakland/Berk congressional districts that he needs to get delegates from them.
He doesn't need 15% statewide, he just needs 15% in each congressional district. He got something like 13% or 14% in 2004 from Barbara Lee's and Nancy Pelosi's districts. Even without the SFBG endorsement, maybe he can do it -- but the SFBG endorsement would no doubt have helped.
What's a delegate worth? A Clinton/Obama/Edwards delegate -- nothing. Same old same old. Their candidates will probably "release" them way before the convention and let the nominee set the platform. But Kucinich delegates would probably try to influence the platform at the national convention, as they did in 2004 when they threatened a floor fight unless the platform committee included language on the war. The more Kucinich delegates there are, the more effect they can have.
San Francisco Bay Area voters, we have a real chance to send a message to the Democratic Party by voting for a real progressive, Dennis Kucinich, and electing delegates for him. Don't waste that chance on Obama or Hillary or Edwards. Your vote makes the most impact if it goes to Kucinich.
Hillary is going to win California. Nothing the Bay Guardian does can change that.
But a SFBG endorsement could have gotten Dennis Kucinich over the 15% vote in San Francisco and Oakland/Berk congressional districts that he needs to get delegates from them.
He doesn't need 15% statewide, he just needs 15% in each congressional district. He got something like 13% or 14% in 2004 from Barbara Lee's and Nancy Pelosi's districts. Even without the SFBG endorsement, maybe he can do it -- but the SFBG endorsement would no doubt have helped.
What's a delegate worth? A Clinton/Obama/Edwards delegate -- nothing. Same old same old. Their candidates will probably "release" them way before the convention and let the nominee set the platform. But Kucinich delegates would probably try to influence the platform at the national convention, as they did in 2004 when they threatened a floor fight unless the platform committee included language on the war. The more Kucinich delegates there are, the more effect they can have.
San Francisco Bay Area voters, we have a real chance to send a message to the Democratic Party by voting for a real progressive, Dennis Kucinich, and electing delegates for him. Don't waste that chance on Obama or Hillary or Edwards. Your vote makes the most impact if it goes to Kucinich.
anya07 on Monday, January 21, 2008 at 09:33 PM
"And we've always liked Dennis Kucinich, who is the only person taking the right positions on almost all of the key issues."
I am totally confused why Kucinich is not your endorsement after reading the this article. If he is the one candidate you truly agree with, why wouldn't you endorse him? I am so saddened by the Guardian's fear of taking a stand and supporting the one candidate who speaks for the Bay Area and working people in the United States. Step in line behind every other biased news source, you have now joined their ranks.
I wish you would reconsider this endorsement.
I am totally confused why Kucinich is not your endorsement after reading the this article. If he is the one candidate you truly agree with, why wouldn't you endorse him? I am so saddened by the Guardian's fear of taking a stand and supporting the one candidate who speaks for the Bay Area and working people in the United States. Step in line behind every other biased news source, you have now joined their ranks.
I wish you would reconsider this endorsement.
polux3 on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Prop 94-97: If the casino workers have not been unionized there is a good reason. Indians, for good reasons, do not trust white people. They feel they should not give their money and the control of their benefits and careers to some white bread organization. After all, these same people kept "wanting the best for them" since Columbus but have been stealing from them, exterminating them, relocating them... The union argument is not valid, it has been offered to the workers of these casinos, but they decided not to be unionized for the reasons mentioned above. Your argument is poor because of lack of information and context, therefore your endorsement is slanted. By the way, Yes on prop 94-97 is backed by 70 California tribes who will benefit for a special fund. The No campaign is backed by big Nevada and SoCal casinos afraid of new competition. I like SFBG, but I don't want these jerks, who spent a lot of money on the No campaign to win.
ngsoter on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 08:28 PM
My comment concerns the statement:
"McKinney has her downside — in recent years she's been flirting with the loony side of the left, getting a bit close to some Sept. 11 conspiracy theories that hurt her credibility (although she's also made some very good points about the attacks and the lack of a serious investigation into what happened)."
I would be very interested to have the Bay Guardian review two books by David Ray Griffin-The New Pearl Harbor, and Omissions and Distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report. I believe the reading public would be very interested in further discussion about the topic of 9-11. And remember, all theories about what happened that day are conspiracy theories. The question is which theory is more consistent with the available facts and makes more sense. It certainly is not the Government's "theory", which David Ray Griffin so aptly and conclusively proves by his investigations and writings. So if not the "Official Theory", what then?
Finally, for those who continue to be skeptical of other theories besides the official version, I ask-When has George W. Bush ever spoken the truth about anything of the remotest importance? Why would 9-11 be any different?
Nick Soter
"McKinney has her downside — in recent years she's been flirting with the loony side of the left, getting a bit close to some Sept. 11 conspiracy theories that hurt her credibility (although she's also made some very good points about the attacks and the lack of a serious investigation into what happened)."
I would be very interested to have the Bay Guardian review two books by David Ray Griffin-The New Pearl Harbor, and Omissions and Distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report. I believe the reading public would be very interested in further discussion about the topic of 9-11. And remember, all theories about what happened that day are conspiracy theories. The question is which theory is more consistent with the available facts and makes more sense. It certainly is not the Government's "theory", which David Ray Griffin so aptly and conclusively proves by his investigations and writings. So if not the "Official Theory", what then?
Finally, for those who continue to be skeptical of other theories besides the official version, I ask-When has George W. Bush ever spoken the truth about anything of the remotest importance? Why would 9-11 be any different?
Nick Soter
Comment on: Endorsements
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
