I certainly don't know the full story on the Crimea Crisis, and I have no affinity for the Oligarch, Putin...but I do know this much. Any group of people, anywhere in the world, has the Natural Right to secede from the governmental institution ruling over them. Government is not the Master...at least, that's the way it should be. Unfortunately, most all governments in today's developed countries are Fascist in nature. Again, I'm using FDR's and Mussolini's definition of Fascism: the power of the State married to the power of BIG Business. That situation is always totalitarian to one degree or another. Whether or not the presence of Russian troops influenced the referendum in Crimea is beside the point...people have the Right to choose a different government. My understanding is that Ukraine essentially has been two separate countries for decades anyway. Plus, what happened there in 1954? History matters.
Perhaps some Americans are unaware that in the late 1780s both New York and Virginia refused to ratify the Constitution until they were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was permitted. Such assurances were given... and believed... another Fed Gov't lie and broken promise.
--------------------------------------------------------
The highest levels of the USA Fed Gov't criticizing Russia's actions, and worse, proposing economic sanctions, is the absolute height of hypocrisy. Remember Panama...and Poppy Bush? Have you seen the acclaimed documentary, The Panama Deception? Remember Iraq...not only the invasion, but previous to that, the economic sanctions that were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 500,000 children? Let's go way back--- the "annexation" of Hawaii, which amounted to the theft of the islands from the indigenous Hawaiians by the US Gov't. How about the invasion of the Philippines in the late 1890s, and the slaughter of thousands of indigenous people? How about the theft of half of Mexico in the 1840s? More recently--- after Osama escaped from Afghanistan, and Dubya Bush shifted the military effort to the invasion of Iraq, various "trial balloons" were sent up by the Feds and the Corporate Media to test the public mind relative to the proposed bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, an international poll was conducted around the world asking if that was a good idea. The results of that poll largely were suppressed... because the world in general overwhelmingly was against the idea. Or, how about Pakistan, where the US Fed Gov't is killing hundreds of civilians (see previous post on this Blog) with drone strikes?
In addition, to hear Kerry talking about "International Law" violations by Russia is both tragic and comic. The highest levels of the US Fed Gov't, throughout History (right up to present day), have violated International Law probably more than any other country on Earth. In fact, the World Court has deemed some of the US actions as "acts of terrorism". Naturally, the Corporate Media report almost nothing of that. Fed Gov't hypocrisy abounds.
In no way should this essay be taken as some sort of support for Russia's actions in Crimea. Putin is just as much an Oligarch as the puppets in DC. The point here is that US criticism of his actions is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. Plus, the Russian-speaking people in Crimea do have the Natural Right to choose their own government. Governments are supposed to be the servants of the People.
------------------------------------------
In general, Oligarchies care about institutions, not people. For the most part, Oligarchs view us as livestock. To them, our purpose is to provide cheap labor and money to public and private institutions...which are controlled by the Oligarchs.
Consider "job creation" and the economy. The Edward Bernays propaganda from the Oligarchy is that rich people create jobs; therefore, corporate welfare from the government is necessary. In fact, the exact opposite is true: consumers create jobs. A corporate institution can manufacture all the widgits it wants to... for a time... but if no one buys those widgits, the corporation goes bust. Numerous studies have shown that consumers drive about 70% of the economy. When listening to the Corporate Media, one would think that the stock market is the main factor in the health of our economy. Not true; actually, it's consumers (of both goods and services) who are the main factor in the health of the stock market and the economy.
Consider the Iraq War (which was completely unconstitutional). Not too long ago, Alan Greenspan spoke publicly about the fact that it was politically incorrect to say so, but that war was "all about the oil". That's a fairly amazing admission from an Oligarch. Most of the world, including me, knew that already... but it was nice to hear. One thing's for sure--- we didn't bring democracy, peace, freedom, and prosperity to Iraq; instead, we facilitated death, despair, corruption, and civil war.
Meanwhile, Obama, Kerry, McCain, et. al., criticize Russia in relation to Crimea... where, so far at least, not a shot has been fired by Russian soldiers.
Be Well
Showing posts with label Secession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secession. Show all posts
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Friday, April 4, 2008
More on Secession
Below are more links dealing with secession. The first one, "The Logic of Secession" is superb. The last one provides a fairly comprehensive list of American separatist movements.
http://middleburyinstitute.org/thelogicofsecession.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCkYCfeDM-I
http://middleburyinstitute.org/rightsandfreedoms.html
http://middleburyinstitute.org/registrynorthamericanseparatists.html
As the U.S. becomes more unsustainable politically, environmentally, and economically, and as it moves closer to the almost complete destruction of unalienable individual rights, more and more people may come to realize that peaceful secession indeed is a viable option.
There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, or unethical about peaceful secession. In fact, obviously it is a very American concept.Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Case for American Secession
Americans love this land, but many of us are fed up with the corrupt, inept, unrepresentative central government in DC that largely ignores the Constitution. The situation will not change through working within the present subverted system. Peaceful secession is a viable option for many regions.
The biggest problem I see for secession is that the first State or region to accomplish it most likely will be overwhelmed with immigrants from the remaining U.S. :)
http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/caseforamericansecession.html
Excerpt:
"Of course, Lincoln’s government acted as if secession were illegal and unconstitutional, and its victory established the practical case that states will be punished if they try to secede, and the Constitution is irrelevant. It did not establish a legal case, however, and the legal (not to mention moral) argument for the right to secede remains strong—so strong that, even if it were denied in the U.S. courts, it would likely be defended in the court of international opinion by many of the world’s nations, including those in the European Union and those that have recently exercised that right (in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia, for example). And that might make it difficult for the federal government to act against a state that has voted for secession, particularly if there were no overriding moral issues (e.g., slavery) and the state proved agreeable to negotiation over federal property and assets within its boundaries...
"The first question is whether secession is legal—whether the Constitution can be read, and history cited, as permitting (or at least not forbidding) a state to declare its independence from the Union. Scholars have come down on both sides of this issue, but that fact alone suggests that there is a legitimate argument to be made. To put it simply: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the United States to the states or the people, so states may act unless specifically prohibited. The Constitution in fact says nothing about secession, and, as Southern states were seceding, Congress considered an amendment forbidding secession—a strong indication that secession is permissible. Three of the original thirteen states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia) kept an explicit right to secede when they joined the Union, and, since that was never challenged or questioned, it must be a right that all states enjoy. In the 19th century, before South Carolina began the bandwagon of secession in 1860, seven states (Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Vermont) enacted acts of nullification—refusing to recognize some or all of the powers of the federal government—without any retaliation by Washington...
This country simply is not working right—as both the war in Iraq and the bumbling of Katrina (at all levels) make clear—and its corruption and inefficiency are harmful to the bulk of the population. The federal government, aside from being bureaucracy bound and politically hamstrung, is too big and complicated and inherently incompetent, and its attempt to provide for 280 million [now 300 million] people and maintain a global empire of 725 military bases has proved to be impossible, placing terrible political and financial burdens on everyone. Secession would allow states to escape this Leviathan, keep their human and financial resources from going down the rathole, avoid association with the failed politics of an ugly empire, and set their own policies (on same-sex “marriage,” abortion, stem-cell research, etc.) without interference from a distant central government increasingly in the hands of corporate interests and neoconservative ideologues. It would allow a blue state a chance to escape from the policies and culture of a red-state government and set its own course. It would, in short, allow people to leave the country they dislike without leaving the homes they cherish. What could make more sense?"
The biggest problem I see for secession is that the first State or region to accomplish it most likely will be overwhelmed with immigrants from the remaining U.S. :)
http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/caseforamericansecession.html
Excerpt:
"Of course, Lincoln’s government acted as if secession were illegal and unconstitutional, and its victory established the practical case that states will be punished if they try to secede, and the Constitution is irrelevant. It did not establish a legal case, however, and the legal (not to mention moral) argument for the right to secede remains strong—so strong that, even if it were denied in the U.S. courts, it would likely be defended in the court of international opinion by many of the world’s nations, including those in the European Union and those that have recently exercised that right (in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia, for example). And that might make it difficult for the federal government to act against a state that has voted for secession, particularly if there were no overriding moral issues (e.g., slavery) and the state proved agreeable to negotiation over federal property and assets within its boundaries...
"The first question is whether secession is legal—whether the Constitution can be read, and history cited, as permitting (or at least not forbidding) a state to declare its independence from the Union. Scholars have come down on both sides of this issue, but that fact alone suggests that there is a legitimate argument to be made. To put it simply: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the United States to the states or the people, so states may act unless specifically prohibited. The Constitution in fact says nothing about secession, and, as Southern states were seceding, Congress considered an amendment forbidding secession—a strong indication that secession is permissible. Three of the original thirteen states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia) kept an explicit right to secede when they joined the Union, and, since that was never challenged or questioned, it must be a right that all states enjoy. In the 19th century, before South Carolina began the bandwagon of secession in 1860, seven states (Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Vermont) enacted acts of nullification—refusing to recognize some or all of the powers of the federal government—without any retaliation by Washington...
This country simply is not working right—as both the war in Iraq and the bumbling of Katrina (at all levels) make clear—and its corruption and inefficiency are harmful to the bulk of the population. The federal government, aside from being bureaucracy bound and politically hamstrung, is too big and complicated and inherently incompetent, and its attempt to provide for 280 million [now 300 million] people and maintain a global empire of 725 military bases has proved to be impossible, placing terrible political and financial burdens on everyone. Secession would allow states to escape this Leviathan, keep their human and financial resources from going down the rathole, avoid association with the failed politics of an ugly empire, and set their own policies (on same-sex “marriage,” abortion, stem-cell research, etc.) without interference from a distant central government increasingly in the hands of corporate interests and neoconservative ideologues. It would allow a blue state a chance to escape from the policies and culture of a red-state government and set its own course. It would, in short, allow people to leave the country they dislike without leaving the homes they cherish. What could make more sense?"
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Second Vermont Republic
I emphasize again that secession is nowhere prohibited by the Constitution, and that being under a government is voluntary...at least in a free society.
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/
Please explore the above website.
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/
Please explore the above website.
Excerpt from http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Features/most_likely_to_secede
"Here’s how it will be with Vermont: The leaders of its secessionist movement, the Second Vermont Republic, want to feed, shelter, clothe, and fuel a free republic broken from the empire. This doesn’t mean the little country will sink into Albanian isolation, its citizens ceasing to trade with China or refusing to watch the rot beamed on DirecTV satellites. It will continue to be a tourist destination, its slopes welcoming New Yorkers and Quebecois equally. But the state's secesh want to keep their tax dollars at home and put them toward localized food economies (calling it "food sovereignty"), energy supplies based on wind and water, and credit lines out of community lenders freed from the distant tyrannical rate controls of central banks."
Amen to that.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Why Secession Makes Sense
The United States needs to be broken up...peacefully. If we are honest and objective in our observations of the U.S. in 2008, we can conclude the following.
1. We no longer have a truly representative government. Anyone who thinks we still do simply is not facing reality.
2. In the last 232 years, the U.S. has become so large and diverse that common individuals no longer are represented in DC. Our central government has evolved into an unwieldy, wasteful, bumbling, out-of-touch monster...with an insatiable appetite.
3. Thanks to both the Democrats and Republicans, the central government essentially has merged with super-giant corporations, creating a Federal Establishment of the money, by the money, and for the money.
4. The sheer size of our population (and its diversity) and our land mass virtually necessitate the implementation of a near-Police-State in order to control the People.
5. The American Empire (created by Globalists of both major political parties) no longer does what is best for this country, but rather does what is best for the multi-national corporations.
6. The professional politicians and the bureaucrats in DC have a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with individual States and regions of the country.
Secession is nowhere prohibited by the U.S Constitution. As a matter of fact, the original nation-States of New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until their delegates were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
The secessionist movement in general in this country has been around for decades. Some of the better known individual movements are: the State of Jefferson (northern California and SW Oregon), the modern-day Republic of Texas, Cascadia, Aztlan, Vermont, California, South Carolina, and the Republic of Lakotah. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement ongoing, with about 66,000 people involved.
Let's keep in mind that being under a government is voluntary; also, our central government does not own the People or the land of this country. If some wish to form their own government, they should be permitted to do so. Did our Founders fight a War of Independence...or a War of Dependence?
Here's an excellent source regarding the philosophy, history, and current state of secession: http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/ .
An excellent commentary on secession:
http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Features/most_likely_to_secede .
Trailer of the film, A State of Mine:
http://astateofmine.com/trailer.html
The Republic of Lakotah:
http://www.republicoflakotah.com/ .
Smaller, more regional is better.
1. We no longer have a truly representative government. Anyone who thinks we still do simply is not facing reality.
2. In the last 232 years, the U.S. has become so large and diverse that common individuals no longer are represented in DC. Our central government has evolved into an unwieldy, wasteful, bumbling, out-of-touch monster...with an insatiable appetite.
3. Thanks to both the Democrats and Republicans, the central government essentially has merged with super-giant corporations, creating a Federal Establishment of the money, by the money, and for the money.
4. The sheer size of our population (and its diversity) and our land mass virtually necessitate the implementation of a near-Police-State in order to control the People.
5. The American Empire (created by Globalists of both major political parties) no longer does what is best for this country, but rather does what is best for the multi-national corporations.
6. The professional politicians and the bureaucrats in DC have a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with individual States and regions of the country.
Secession is nowhere prohibited by the U.S Constitution. As a matter of fact, the original nation-States of New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until their delegates were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
The secessionist movement in general in this country has been around for decades. Some of the better known individual movements are: the State of Jefferson (northern California and SW Oregon), the modern-day Republic of Texas, Cascadia, Aztlan, Vermont, California, South Carolina, and the Republic of Lakotah. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement ongoing, with about 66,000 people involved.
Let's keep in mind that being under a government is voluntary; also, our central government does not own the People or the land of this country. If some wish to form their own government, they should be permitted to do so. Did our Founders fight a War of Independence...or a War of Dependence?
Here's an excellent source regarding the philosophy, history, and current state of secession: http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/ .
An excellent commentary on secession:
http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Features/most_likely_to_secede .
Trailer of the film, A State of Mine:
http://astateofmine.com/trailer.html
The Republic of Lakotah:
http://www.republicoflakotah.com/ .
Smaller, more regional is better.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Flaws in the Constitution
As much as I defend the Constitution, I don't think we even should have one. Let's not forget that it took well over a year of bitter debate before all of the original States ratified it. The two States at the tail end of that process did so only because they had little economic choice.
1. The Constitution had a very nefarious beginning...the original purpose of the meeting was to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, but some of the attendees launched (in secret) a plan to dump the Articles entirely.
2. It was written only for Caucasian males---no one else was considered a full citizen. It took women over a hundred years to get the right to vote. (Actually, they had it all along, but no one enforced it. It is, after all, an unalienable right to participate in the choosing of who governs you, and is not dependent on any government grant.)
3. It is not anywhere nearly as important a philosophical document as is the Declaration of Independence.
4. It assumed that because Supreme Court judges were appointed for life, they would not be politically influenced. That was a major fatal flaw.
5. It contains several minor flaws, such as not defining "General Welfare", and not placing term limits on members of Congress (it never occurred to the Founders that anyone would want to make a CAREER out of political office), and having no penalty on Congress for failing to call an Article V Convention when enough States request it. And there are others.
6. It failed to make crystal clear the fact that secession is allowed. As I've pointed out before, New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until they were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
I really believe we would be better off with a loose confederation of nation-States under the Articles, a model somewhat similar to what Europe is today. All that was needed were amendments for: a common standard for money; some inter-State commerce rules; and taxes for "national" (Confederation) defense. With the Constitution, they tried hard to make a nation where States' rights were more important than the central government, but they largely failed. So today we have a "one-size-fits-all" approach by the plutocracy in DC, which is imposed on the States whether they like it or not. And of course, it is the States who are the People, NOT DC.
I hate to say it, but I believe that the Founders failed in accomplishing what they set out to do...to establish a free society. I stay here because I love the land, and because I've seen nothing better anywhere else. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that this is not the society that our Founders envisioned when they declared independence.
1. The Constitution had a very nefarious beginning...the original purpose of the meeting was to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, but some of the attendees launched (in secret) a plan to dump the Articles entirely.
2. It was written only for Caucasian males---no one else was considered a full citizen. It took women over a hundred years to get the right to vote. (Actually, they had it all along, but no one enforced it. It is, after all, an unalienable right to participate in the choosing of who governs you, and is not dependent on any government grant.)
3. It is not anywhere nearly as important a philosophical document as is the Declaration of Independence.
4. It assumed that because Supreme Court judges were appointed for life, they would not be politically influenced. That was a major fatal flaw.
5. It contains several minor flaws, such as not defining "General Welfare", and not placing term limits on members of Congress (it never occurred to the Founders that anyone would want to make a CAREER out of political office), and having no penalty on Congress for failing to call an Article V Convention when enough States request it. And there are others.
6. It failed to make crystal clear the fact that secession is allowed. As I've pointed out before, New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until they were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
I really believe we would be better off with a loose confederation of nation-States under the Articles, a model somewhat similar to what Europe is today. All that was needed were amendments for: a common standard for money; some inter-State commerce rules; and taxes for "national" (Confederation) defense. With the Constitution, they tried hard to make a nation where States' rights were more important than the central government, but they largely failed. So today we have a "one-size-fits-all" approach by the plutocracy in DC, which is imposed on the States whether they like it or not. And of course, it is the States who are the People, NOT DC.
I hate to say it, but I believe that the Founders failed in accomplishing what they set out to do...to establish a free society. I stay here because I love the land, and because I've seen nothing better anywhere else. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that this is not the society that our Founders envisioned when they declared independence.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
More on Boycotting
This is only my opinion and perhaps many will disagree, but national elections in this country have become truly meaningless. They present us with this choice: a horrible, especially corrupted evil, OR, just a corrupted evil.
I see only two reasonable options left to honorable people:
1. Boycott the Establishment---that can be done minimally, maximally, or anything in-between. (Use your imagination.) One's stage of life plays a big part in how much you're willing to risk.
2. Secession: not as crazy as it sounds. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement currently, with about 64,000 people involved. I've found this site, http://middleburyinstitute.org/ , to be the most responsible and logical of the various secessionist websites.
Armed revolt obviously is out of the question. Any such action would be thoroughly crushed. Pockets of resistance might survive for years, but not enough to matter. Some people are talking about this very action on the web...I think they are very unrealistic.
Only nonviolent civil disobedience will ever change the entrenched DC way of doing things. People have forgotten that being under a government is voluntary, and that we really do have unalienable rights that have nothing at all to do with any government...whatsoever.
There were/are three types of "citizen" (legally) in this country:
1. a citizen of a State of the Union (this is the most important category, Constitutionally);
2. a citizen of "the United States", prior to the 14th Amendment (which really is a different name for number 1 above); and,
3. a citizen of "the United States" per the 14th Amendment (which is clearly different from either of the above, and is one who enjoys "civil" rights---which are granted by Congress).
See: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php
"In drafting the [14th] Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them."
Civil rights entail allegiance to the Govt; unalienable rights do not. Our present Govt places civil rights ABOVE unalienable rights. Furthermore, it is no longer a representative government; special interests of the Corporatocracy have seen to that.
In general, the Govt of this country is too corrupted to change in any meaningful way... unless it is forced to by nonviolent civil disobedience. (That can be done locally, or individually---it doesn't necessarily mean a massive "March on DC".) Failing that, I see only more of the same in the future. I realize full well that many support the Democrats, and see them as an agent for positive change. I don't; and even after the NeoCons have faded into history, I don't see the Republicans that way either. The movers and shakers of both parties are committed to the Globalist New World Order.
Frankly, having been a serious observer of American politics since 1956, I've concluded that the current dominating corruption of principles by both Democrats and Republicans at the national level will continue until they are both forced out of the American political system. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Government is always best at the local or regional level. Even then it can be a stinker. I'm beginning to believe that we should have stuck with the European model---that is to say, each State being an independent Republic. Of course, the Articles of Confederation would have to be expanded to allow for the military defense of all...meaning, "national" taxes for defense only would have to be implemented.
Naturally, the above will never happen. So we're back to square one. I would like to live long enough to see the time when "citizens" of this great land finally realize that significant, positive change (for peace and Freedom) here will never be the result of voting in national elections. Forty or fifty years ago that was possible, but no longer. The Corporatocracy is firmly entrenched, almost completely out in the open relative to their actions, and has almost absolute control of the voting process---from A to Z.
Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible! [EXAMPLES: stop watching the drivel on commercial TV (the major networks already are concerned about losing viewers); stop buying crap made in China; don't patronize Exxon-Mobil stations---the corp has the most obscene profits in the oil industry; stop voting in politicians who spend beyond our means, trample on the 10th Amendment, or believe that it's just too complicated to end the war now; every time you sign ANY Govt form, write "All Rights Reserved", or, "Expressly Reserving All Rights" beneath your name; participate at http://www.downsizeDC.org/ ; whenever possible, buy locally at independent stores---avoid the big chains; etc. Those are ways to boycott at only a minimal level.]
I see only two reasonable options left to honorable people:
1. Boycott the Establishment---that can be done minimally, maximally, or anything in-between. (Use your imagination.) One's stage of life plays a big part in how much you're willing to risk.
2. Secession: not as crazy as it sounds. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement currently, with about 64,000 people involved. I've found this site, http://middleburyinstitute.org/ , to be the most responsible and logical of the various secessionist websites.
Armed revolt obviously is out of the question. Any such action would be thoroughly crushed. Pockets of resistance might survive for years, but not enough to matter. Some people are talking about this very action on the web...I think they are very unrealistic.
Only nonviolent civil disobedience will ever change the entrenched DC way of doing things. People have forgotten that being under a government is voluntary, and that we really do have unalienable rights that have nothing at all to do with any government...whatsoever.
There were/are three types of "citizen" (legally) in this country:
1. a citizen of a State of the Union (this is the most important category, Constitutionally);
2. a citizen of "the United States", prior to the 14th Amendment (which really is a different name for number 1 above); and,
3. a citizen of "the United States" per the 14th Amendment (which is clearly different from either of the above, and is one who enjoys "civil" rights---which are granted by Congress).
See: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php
"In drafting the [14th] Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them."
Civil rights entail allegiance to the Govt; unalienable rights do not. Our present Govt places civil rights ABOVE unalienable rights. Furthermore, it is no longer a representative government; special interests of the Corporatocracy have seen to that.
In general, the Govt of this country is too corrupted to change in any meaningful way... unless it is forced to by nonviolent civil disobedience. (That can be done locally, or individually---it doesn't necessarily mean a massive "March on DC".) Failing that, I see only more of the same in the future. I realize full well that many support the Democrats, and see them as an agent for positive change. I don't; and even after the NeoCons have faded into history, I don't see the Republicans that way either. The movers and shakers of both parties are committed to the Globalist New World Order.
Frankly, having been a serious observer of American politics since 1956, I've concluded that the current dominating corruption of principles by both Democrats and Republicans at the national level will continue until they are both forced out of the American political system. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Government is always best at the local or regional level. Even then it can be a stinker. I'm beginning to believe that we should have stuck with the European model---that is to say, each State being an independent Republic. Of course, the Articles of Confederation would have to be expanded to allow for the military defense of all...meaning, "national" taxes for defense only would have to be implemented.
Naturally, the above will never happen. So we're back to square one. I would like to live long enough to see the time when "citizens" of this great land finally realize that significant, positive change (for peace and Freedom) here will never be the result of voting in national elections. Forty or fifty years ago that was possible, but no longer. The Corporatocracy is firmly entrenched, almost completely out in the open relative to their actions, and has almost absolute control of the voting process---from A to Z.
Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible! [EXAMPLES: stop watching the drivel on commercial TV (the major networks already are concerned about losing viewers); stop buying crap made in China; don't patronize Exxon-Mobil stations---the corp has the most obscene profits in the oil industry; stop voting in politicians who spend beyond our means, trample on the 10th Amendment, or believe that it's just too complicated to end the war now; every time you sign ANY Govt form, write "All Rights Reserved", or, "Expressly Reserving All Rights" beneath your name; participate at http://www.downsizeDC.org/ ; whenever possible, buy locally at independent stores---avoid the big chains; etc. Those are ways to boycott at only a minimal level.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)