Comments for Real Democracy http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com Converting the Elected Oligarchy of the United States of America into a truly Representative Democracy Fri, 16 May 2008 12:33:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by realdemocracy http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-44 realdemocracy Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:27:26 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-44 I also cannot disagree with much of your comments. Indeed, moving toward the goals outlined here (or anything like them) would require several steps and likely considerable time. Any such change, without a complete collapse of the current government, would require Constitutional Amendments, and that process is generally time consuming and requires some degree of cooperation among the establishment, since it must either originate in Congress or in a Constitutional Convention requested by 2/3 of the states' legislatures. Furthermore, I have read some allegations that the legislatures have often made such petition to the Congress, without Congress fulfilling its constitutional duty to call such a Convention. While I have not yet researched the validity of these allegations, if true, this suggests that the only way to achieve these goals would require first getting Congress to propose such amendments. And since the amendments I propose are unlikely to appeal to anyone who aspires to a career as a politician, it will require electing a Congress wherein at least 2/3 of each house would support such measures. Given that the Senate only elects roughly 1/3 of its members every two years, this would require at least two such election cycles (if pro-democracy candidates could win 100% of those Senate races). Furthermore, that would mean a very strong popular movement which could maintain its momentum for several years. One strange thing that would result from this would be that theoretically, we might elect a 2/3 majority of pro-democracy Representatives to the House 2 to 4 years before a sufficient majority would exist in the Senate. Consequently, some of these Representatives might be intoxicated by this time in Congress, and might not retain their revolutionary spirit.... So, yes, the challenges are significant. And yes, impeachment is more pressing currently. My concern is that if we get impeachment, conviction and removal, with or without criminal prosecution and imprisonment, that people may then fall back into complacency, in the belief that the problem has been dealt with, and that no further reform is necessary. So, I am trying to use whatever anger there may currently be to introduce this idea to people who may not have even considered it yet. And the resistance I have received so far from even very progressive people who vehemently support impeachment tells me that I cannot consider diluting my message at all. Furthermore, I would like to suggest to you that most, if not all, who might be interested in my ideas for a considerably more participatory democracy (I am trying not to use the term "direct democracy" because for many that implies simply legislation by national referendum, which might still be better than our current system, but would not be sufficiently deliberative or participatory) are likely already opposed to the imperial presidency, and in support of impeachment. However, I will gladly add links to other blogs and websites dedicated to impeachment on my blogroll. Actually, I am part of a group here in Austin, TX that just produced an impeachment forum, and due to that, I am already aware of some such websites, and will start adding some of these to my blogroll. Please feel free to send me links to other blogs and such to post there as well. I also cannot disagree with much of your comments. Indeed, moving toward the goals outlined here (or anything like them) would require several steps and likely considerable time. Any such change, without a complete collapse of the current government, would require Constitutional Amendments, and that process is generally time consuming and requires some degree of cooperation among the establishment, since it must either originate in Congress or in a Constitutional Convention requested by 2/3 of the states’ legislatures. Furthermore, I have read some allegations that the legislatures have often made such petition to the Congress, without Congress fulfilling its constitutional duty to call such a Convention. While I have not yet researched the validity of these allegations, if true, this suggests that the only way to achieve these goals would require first getting Congress to propose such amendments. And since the amendments I propose are unlikely to appeal to anyone who aspires to a career as a politician, it will require electing a Congress wherein at least 2/3 of each house would support such measures. Given that the Senate only elects roughly 1/3 of its members every two years, this would require at least two such election cycles (if pro-democracy candidates could win 100% of those Senate races). Furthermore, that would mean a very strong popular movement which could maintain its momentum for several years. One strange thing that would result from this would be that theoretically, we might elect a 2/3 majority of pro-democracy Representatives to the House 2 to 4 years before a sufficient majority would exist in the Senate. Consequently, some of these Representatives might be intoxicated by this time in Congress, and might not retain their revolutionary spirit….

So, yes, the challenges are significant. And yes, impeachment is more pressing currently. My concern is that if we get impeachment, conviction and removal, with or without criminal prosecution and imprisonment, that people may then fall back into complacency, in the belief that the problem has been dealt with, and that no further reform is necessary. So, I am trying to use whatever anger there may currently be to introduce this idea to people who may not have even considered it yet. And the resistance I have received so far from even very progressive people who vehemently support impeachment tells me that I cannot consider diluting my message at all.

Furthermore, I would like to suggest to you that most, if not all, who might be interested in my ideas for a considerably more participatory democracy (I am trying not to use the term “direct democracy” because for many that implies simply legislation by national referendum, which might still be better than our current system, but would not be sufficiently deliberative or participatory) are likely already opposed to the imperial presidency, and in support of impeachment.

However, I will gladly add links to other blogs and websites dedicated to impeachment on my blogroll. Actually, I am part of a group here in Austin, TX that just produced an impeachment forum, and due to that, I am already aware of some such websites, and will start adding some of these to my blogroll. Please feel free to send me links to other blogs and such to post there as well.

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by jsduran http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-43 jsduran Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:55:34 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-43 I really cant disagree with anything you've said, except perhaps with the relative importance of the issues. Certainly I am not suggesting that the notion of direct democracy not be promoted. What I am suggesting is that you dont get from A to B in one step, and realistic strategies should be sought -- action-oriented, with a focus of the next doable thing. Surely you agree that going from where we are now to the system you suggest in one step is not a plausible notion. The change we seek cannot possibly be implemented top-down. The "top" is taken and they arent going to let go just because we ask. So it has to be bottom-up, with a focus on making measurable progress. One has to play the hand one has been dealt, not the one one wishes he had. I think you may overestimate the "outrage" of the people. There just has not been to this point an effective, salient, and uniform effort to uphold the shame of what has happened and the criminality of those responsible.In my opinion, this is the first task at hand in the way to where I think you would want us to go. Not only would it expose the criminality of what has occurred, but it would also show that the Left can actually get something done, which is of much practical value in pushing for future change. In other words, my point is that when the house is on fire, it may not be best thing to react by talking about fire-retardant building methods. Or we can, but then we look like people that are content with talking and do not seem to have an interest in actual participation. But to close here. I am by no means trying to change the thrust of this blog. The ideas for which you started this blog must have a public forum and you are doing a commendable service by providing it and I encourage you to keep it up. I was just passing by and thought there was a point needing to be made (not just here but on just about every other progressive blog at present). I really cant disagree with anything you’ve said, except perhaps with the relative importance of the issues. Certainly I am not suggesting that the notion of direct democracy not be promoted. What I am suggesting is that you dont get from A to B in one step, and realistic strategies should be sought — action-oriented, with a focus of the next doable thing. Surely you agree that going from where we are now to the system you suggest in one step is not a plausible notion. The change we seek cannot possibly be implemented top-down. The “top” is taken and they arent going to let go just because we ask. So it has to be bottom-up, with a focus on making measurable progress. One has to play the hand one has been dealt, not the one one wishes he had.

I think you may overestimate the “outrage” of the people. There just has not been to this point an effective, salient, and uniform effort to uphold the shame of what has happened and the criminality of those responsible.In my opinion, this is the first task at hand in the way to where I think you would want us to go. Not only would it expose the criminality of what has occurred, but it would also show that the Left can actually get something done, which is of much practical value in pushing for future change.

In other words, my point is that when the house is on fire, it may not be best thing to react by talking about fire-retardant building methods. Or we can, but then we look like people that are content with talking and do not seem to have an interest in actual participation.

But to close here. I am by no means trying to change the thrust of this blog. The ideas for which you started this blog must have a public forum and you are doing a commendable service by providing it and I encourage you to keep it up. I was just passing by and thought there was a point needing to be made (not just here but on just about every other progressive blog at present).

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by realdemocracy http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-42 realdemocracy Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:32:35 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-42 I definitely think impeachment should be one of the things we as a nation must pursue right now, but as you say, that is not what this blog is about. It is a more long-term project. Furthermore, while we must impeach and convict to remove from office, then indict and convict on domestic and international criminal charges, and then imprison all those who are guilty from this administration, including at least Bush and Cheney, I believe it is vitally important that we must use the anger and indignation that so many Americans are now feeling to make sure that we do not stop there. We must realize that our system of government as outlined in our Constitution, while a drastic improvement over the monarchies that preceded it, and although it served us well for the first 160 years of this republic, it is insufficient to protect us indefinitely against tyranny. The Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and (especially) Bush administrations have made that all too clear. Furthermore, the model we are using to "represent" the people in the House is antiquated, and there are numerous superior examples available to choose from. The idea that a certain class of people are better equipped to ponder and decide the issues of the people than the people themselves is simply erroneous. However many examples one may have from anecdotal experience of the ignorance or stupidity of the common man, opinion polls provide ample evidence that the people, when taken as a whole, are often ahead of (i.e. more progressive than) elected officials (when also taken as a whole) on many important issues. If we had a democracy, we would probably have had a universal health care system in the '40s. We would likely have less unemployment and less poverty, less crime, not be engaged in a useless drug war, and we would already be out of Iraq. Actually, I believe this issue is possibly more important than impeachment. While impeachment will get two bums out of office who only have a year and a half left anyway, and MIGHT deter future scumbags from attempting some of their tricks (but will more likely just make them try to avoid their "mistakes" that allowed them to be caught), changing the system will make it impossible for any individual or cabal to exert enough influence to commit such crimes, or at the very least will force them to figure out a new scheme for trying to subvert it. I definitely think impeachment should be one of the things we as a nation must pursue right now, but as you say, that is not what this blog is about. It is a more long-term project. Furthermore, while we must impeach and convict to remove from office, then indict and convict on domestic and international criminal charges, and then imprison all those who are guilty from this administration, including at least Bush and Cheney, I believe it is vitally important that we must use the anger and indignation that so many Americans are now feeling to make sure that we do not stop there. We must realize that our system of government as outlined in our Constitution, while a drastic improvement over the monarchies that preceded it, and although it served us well for the first 160 years of this republic, it is insufficient to protect us indefinitely against tyranny. The Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and (especially) Bush administrations have made that all too clear. Furthermore, the model we are using to “represent” the people in the House is antiquated, and there are numerous superior examples available to choose from. The idea that a certain class of people are better equipped to ponder and decide the issues of the people than the people themselves is simply erroneous. However many examples one may have from anecdotal experience of the ignorance or stupidity of the common man, opinion polls provide ample evidence that the people, when taken as a whole, are often ahead of (i.e. more progressive than) elected officials (when also taken as a whole) on many important issues. If we had a democracy, we would probably have had a universal health care system in the ’40s. We would likely have less unemployment and less poverty, less crime, not be engaged in a useless drug war, and we would already be out of Iraq.

Actually, I believe this issue is possibly more important than impeachment. While impeachment will get two bums out of office who only have a year and a half left anyway, and MIGHT deter future scumbags from attempting some of their tricks (but will more likely just make them try to avoid their “mistakes” that allowed them to be caught), changing the system will make it impossible for any individual or cabal to exert enough influence to commit such crimes, or at the very least will force them to figure out a new scheme for trying to subvert it.

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by jsduran http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-41 jsduran Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:54:01 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-41 All good or at least interesting ideas here -- certainly in the right spirit. But let us not keep making what is becoming the perennial mistake of the American Left, namely undoing ourselves in words. Again, the concepts being put forward here are plausible and should continue to be discussed and promoted, but we have to be more action-oriented. Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney have been introduced, they are House Resolution 333. I submit to you guys that it is imperative that, at least for the moment, we put this impeachment ahead of any grander political system changes. One might say "this is not what this blog is about" go find one that is. That is fair. But my point is that it is going to take ALL of us. The Right has a habit of thinking little and doing lots. We have allowed this and look what's happened. Unfortunately, we have the opposite problem: we talk a lot and do little. We have to change this. Ideally, in my opinion, the dialogue in every Left/Progressive blog, for the time being, should be about organizing the push for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. All good or at least interesting ideas here — certainly in the right spirit. But let us not keep making what is becoming the perennial mistake of the American Left, namely undoing ourselves in words. Again, the concepts being put forward here are plausible and should continue to be discussed and promoted, but we have to be more action-oriented.

Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney have been introduced, they are House Resolution 333. I submit to you guys that it is imperative that, at least for the moment, we put this impeachment ahead of any grander political system changes.

One might say “this is not what this blog is about” go find one that is. That is fair. But my point is that it is going to take ALL of us. The Right has a habit of thinking little and doing lots. We have allowed this and look what’s happened. Unfortunately, we have the opposite problem: we talk a lot and do little. We have to change this.

Ideally, in my opinion, the dialogue in every Left/Progressive blog, for the time being, should be about organizing the push for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by realdemocracy http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-40 realdemocracy Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:54:58 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-40 I don't really consider Switzerland to be a direct democracy, but indeed, they are much closer than we are in the U.S. I don’t really consider Switzerland to be a direct democracy, but indeed, they are much closer than we are in the U.S.

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by freedomfest http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-39 freedomfest Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:49:57 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-39 You only have to look at Switzerland to see the advantages of direct democracy and decentralized confederation government. For more about Switzerland their their direct democracy model, go to Switzerland: is Still #1 in Liberty, Direct Democracy & As a Financial Center at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve23.htm From the free online book, "The Swiss Preserve Solution" You only have to look at Switzerland to see the advantages of direct democracy and decentralized confederation government. For more about Switzerland their their direct democracy model, go to
Switzerland: is Still #1 in Liberty, Direct Democracy & As a Financial Center at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve23.htm

From the free online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution”

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by realdemocracy http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-38 realdemocracy Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:13:03 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-38 Certainly MLK and Malcolm X were trying to make our society more just, and were killed for it. I really don't know enough about RFK to have an opinion on where he was politically at the time he was killed, but I know sometimes politicians say things that are little more than rhetoric, and don't act on their words when they get the chance, so whether or not RFK would have done anything remarkable as President had he not been killed is something we will simply never know. Now if your statement above referred to JFK, I have to take some exception. I know he was very popular, and that he apparently issued an Executive Order just before he was killed to put the US on a silver standard and take at least some power away from the Federal Reserve. I also know that many people speculate that this was the primary reason he was assassinated. I don't know enough about finance to really KNOW that this was the wonderful act that many say it was; however, I am prone to believe that it would have helped the average American, and cut into the profit and power of the banks...and that is a good thing, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I also feel that we must hold JFK accountable for increasing the number of military advisors and troops sent into Vietnam, and for continuing, or even escalating, the confrontational nature of relations between the US and USSR. Basically, I believe the Cold War was one of the greatest mistakes of political history, and we should have worked together with the Soviet Union to improve each other's nations and the rest of the world for the benefit of THE PEOPLE instead of governmental power grabs in the service of ruling elites. Even though the Cold War was in full swing when Kennedy became President, I think if he was really interested in working for the people and not the ruling elites, he would have found a way to end the Cold War (or at least begin that process) and cooperate with the Soviets. One of the reasons I don't support Ron Paul is because he is among the people who believe that the free market will work everything out, and that we should leave it alone. I very much disagree with that economic philosophy. I think fairness is much more important than "freedom" when it comes to economics. I think personal liberty and human rights are vitally important, but I think that "free market" economic policies work against both of these, as well as against democracy. In order for people to have individual liberty, they must have political liberty, which must come from political equality, which is dependent upon social and economic justice. Therefore, markets must be controlled and regulated, not by some elite government as it was in capital-C Communist countries like the USSR, but by all the people working together to make both political and economic decisions for the benefit of all. To your question "Can the war on terrorism ever be won realistically?" Not by military means, but if you'll click on the link (on the right at top of page) that says "Issues/My Blog" and read the article entitled "The So-Called War on Terrorism" there is a link to an organization called War Kids Relief, which offers the kinds of support to kids, especially in Iraq (for now), that will help keep them from being recruiting targets for terrorist and extremist groups. That is exactly how we can win a "war on terrorism." Not by attacking people with bullets, bombs, and torture, but by addressing the socio-political factors that lead people to choose terrorism as a path in life. BTW, Mike Gravel also wants to abolish the IRS, but doesn't plan to starve the government and the programs that help so many people. Instead, he supports the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org). I am still undecided on whether or not the "Fair Tax" would truly be fair, and thus, whether or not I support it, but I am definitely willing to entertain the idea. Certainly MLK and Malcolm X were trying to make our society more just, and were killed for it. I really don’t know enough about RFK to have an opinion on where he was politically at the time he was killed, but I know sometimes politicians say things that are little more than rhetoric, and don’t act on their words when they get the chance, so whether or not RFK would have done anything remarkable as President had he not been killed is something we will simply never know. Now if your statement above referred to JFK, I have to take some exception. I know he was very popular, and that he apparently issued an Executive Order just before he was killed to put the US on a silver standard and take at least some power away from the Federal Reserve. I also know that many people speculate that this was the primary reason he was assassinated. I don’t know enough about finance to really KNOW that this was the wonderful act that many say it was; however, I am prone to believe that it would have helped the average American, and cut into the profit and power of the banks…and that is a good thing, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I also feel that we must hold JFK accountable for increasing the number of military advisors and troops sent into Vietnam, and for continuing, or even escalating, the confrontational nature of relations between the US and USSR. Basically, I believe the Cold War was one of the greatest mistakes of political history, and we should have worked together with the Soviet Union to improve each other’s nations and the rest of the world for the benefit of THE PEOPLE instead of governmental power grabs in the service of ruling elites. Even though the Cold War was in full swing when Kennedy became President, I think if he was really interested in working for the people and not the ruling elites, he would have found a way to end the Cold War (or at least begin that process) and cooperate with the Soviets.

One of the reasons I don’t support Ron Paul is because he is among the people who believe that the free market will work everything out, and that we should leave it alone. I very much disagree with that economic philosophy. I think fairness is much more important than “freedom” when it comes to economics. I think personal liberty and human rights are vitally important, but I think that “free market” economic policies work against both of these, as well as against democracy. In order for people to have individual liberty, they must have political liberty, which must come from political equality, which is dependent upon social and economic justice. Therefore, markets must be controlled and regulated, not by some elite government as it was in capital-C Communist countries like the USSR, but by all the people working together to make both political and economic decisions for the benefit of all.

To your question “Can the war on terrorism ever be won realistically?”

Not by military means, but if you’ll click on the link (on the right at top of page) that says “Issues/My Blog” and read the article entitled “The So-Called War on Terrorism” there is a link to an organization called War Kids Relief, which offers the kinds of support to kids, especially in Iraq (for now), that will help keep them from being recruiting targets for terrorist and extremist groups. That is exactly how we can win a “war on terrorism.” Not by attacking people with bullets, bombs, and torture, but by addressing the socio-political factors that lead people to choose terrorism as a path in life.

BTW, Mike Gravel also wants to abolish the IRS, but doesn’t plan to starve the government and the programs that help so many people. Instead, he supports the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org). I am still undecided on whether or not the “Fair Tax” would truly be fair, and thus, whether or not I support it, but I am definitely willing to entertain the idea.

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by daniellytle http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-36 daniellytle Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:15:37 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-36 Honestly, I have never believed in our government, all three branches including the 537 elected officials who have control over the national political sphere. I've always felt that their are entirely to many flaws in our current system, our supposed Republic. Even with a direct democracy participants turning down titles of nobility, gestures & lump sums of money in exchange for their own personal or political gain, success or gratification is inevitable. I suppose, for some it may be a false hope to believe in a politician/man like Ron Paul. Just one man in a fake plastic office with fake plastic people telling him what he should do & not. I can think of several remarkable individuals as I would assume you could that have touched the lives of millions and still do even after they were shot & killed for going against the agenda. What is the agenda? Who is standing behind the curtains whispering false truths in the ears of masses? Who is profiting & funding this war? Can the war on terrorism ever be won realistically? These are questions I have been asking myself every since I witnessed the tragedy on September 11, 2001. While many people have become more aware of what is happening behind the scenes these past few decades. Others can't even grasp the subject or just plain flat out choose not to. " I believe that the banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies...If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issue of currency...the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -Thomas Jefferson. All the money circulating in the U.S. is backed by nothing & every dollar has interest on it. If I were to take a trip to the bank and try to exchange $500.ºº for an equal amount of gold or silver no one would be able to for fill my request. And If i insisted I would probably be arrested and thrown in jail. For all Americans paying income taxes, one third of a yearly salary goes straight to the federal reserve to pay off the the interest on money you think you earned but in fact your really borrowing. " I am a most unhappy man, I have willingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by it's system of credit. we are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson. The last statement by Woodrow Wilson was made after signing the bill which started the gears for the Federal Reserve.....Ron Paul's statement on his plans to abolish the IRS and the federal reserve his first week of office took me by surprise. Honestly, I have never had the opportunity to sit down with Ron Paul for dinner to discuss this issue. But If I could I would commend him on leading in the effort to restore our republic. "They must find it difficult...Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." -G. Massey Honestly, I have never believed in our government, all three branches including the 537 elected officials who have control over the national political sphere. I’ve always felt that their are entirely to many flaws in our current system, our supposed Republic. Even with a direct democracy participants turning down titles of nobility, gestures & lump sums of money in exchange for their own personal or political gain, success or gratification is inevitable.

I suppose, for some it may be a false hope to believe in a politician/man like Ron Paul. Just one man in a fake plastic office with fake plastic people telling him what he should do & not. I can think of several remarkable individuals as I would assume you could that have touched the lives of millions and still do even after they were shot & killed for going against the agenda.

What is the agenda? Who is standing behind the curtains whispering false truths in the ears of masses? Who is profiting & funding this war? Can the war on terrorism ever be won realistically? These are questions I have been asking myself every since I witnessed the tragedy on September 11, 2001. While many people have become more aware of what is happening behind the scenes these past few decades. Others can’t even grasp the subject or just plain flat out choose not to.

” I believe that the banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson.

All the money circulating in the U.S. is backed by nothing & every dollar has interest on it. If I were to take a trip to the bank and try to exchange $500.ºº for an equal amount of gold or silver no one would be able to for fill my request. And If i insisted I would probably be arrested and thrown in jail. For all Americans paying income taxes, one third of a yearly salary goes straight to the federal reserve to pay off the the interest on money you think you earned but in fact your really borrowing.

” I am a most unhappy man, I have willingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by it’s system of credit. we are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson.

The last statement by Woodrow Wilson was made after signing the bill which started the gears for the Federal Reserve…..Ron Paul’s statement on his plans to abolish the IRS and the federal reserve his first week of office took me by surprise. Honestly, I have never had the opportunity to sit down with Ron Paul for dinner to discuss this issue. But If I could I would commend him on leading in the effort to restore our republic.

“They must find it difficult…Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.” -G. Massey

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by realdemocracy http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-35 realdemocracy Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:16:11 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-35 I'll admit that of the two "major" parties' candidates, Ron Paul would be the third best choice for President, given the fact that there is not much likelihood of abolishing the office of President in the next 17 months. Just curious, but do you know what Dennis Kucinich or Make Gravel have in their platforms? Do you know who Elaine Brown is? Personally, I don't support anyone for President, because I think the office should be abolished. Having a position with that much power invested entirely in one person is just foolish. since our election process has more to do with fundraising, being photogenic and charismatic, and other factors that are generally unrelated to competence, we have no way of ensuring that someone qualified will win that post (if anyone is truly qualified for such a position). In fact, I can't think of anyone in my lifetime who was, and I'd be willing to argue that none of this country's Presidents was worthy of the position, although I will admit that before World War 2, it was not such a powerful position as it has been since, and as such, being qualified to hold the position as it was then may have been more of a realistic possibility. Even if we found someone who was ideal for the position, after two terms we'd need to find someone else. And if we changed the Constitution to allow our "perfect" President to remain in office beyond two terms, we are asking for greater problems. One, because power corrupts even the greatest of people, and two, because even if our perfect President never becomes corrupted by the immense power of the position, eventually death would remove that President from us, and we would have to find another, and then we'd have a Constitution without mandatory term limits for President....scary! No, the only rational course is to change the way we make decisions, to spread the power of decision-making to all Americans, to incorporate sufficient deliberation to prevent decisions based on mass hysteria, and to include protections for minority opinions and individuals. I’ll admit that of the two “major” parties’ candidates, Ron Paul would be the third best choice for President, given the fact that there is not much likelihood of abolishing the office of President in the next 17 months.
Just curious, but do you know what Dennis Kucinich or Make Gravel have in their platforms? Do you know who Elaine Brown is?
Personally, I don’t support anyone for President, because I think the office should be abolished. Having a position with that much power invested entirely in one person is just foolish. since our election process has more to do with fundraising, being photogenic and charismatic, and other factors that are generally unrelated to competence, we have no way of ensuring that someone qualified will win that post (if anyone is truly qualified for such a position). In fact, I can’t think of anyone in my lifetime who was, and I’d be willing to argue that none of this country’s Presidents was worthy of the position, although I will admit that before World War 2, it was not such a powerful position as it has been since, and as such, being qualified to hold the position as it was then may have been more of a realistic possibility.
Even if we found someone who was ideal for the position, after two terms we’d need to find someone else. And if we changed the Constitution to allow our “perfect” President to remain in office beyond two terms, we are asking for greater problems. One, because power corrupts even the greatest of people, and two, because even if our perfect President never becomes corrupted by the immense power of the position, eventually death would remove that President from us, and we would have to find another, and then we’d have a Constitution without mandatory term limits for President….scary!
No, the only rational course is to change the way we make decisions, to spread the power of decision-making to all Americans, to incorporate sufficient deliberation to prevent decisions based on mass hysteria, and to include protections for minority opinions and individuals.

]]> Comment on Welcome to Real Democracy by daniellytle http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com#comment-34 daniellytle Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:59:39 +0000 http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/welcome-to-real-democracy/#comment-34 If we can get a man like Ron Paul in office that would be an excellent start. Here is a man for ten terms has never voted to pass a bill that doesn't follow the principals of the constitution. He intends to abolish the IRS and the federal reserve & all thats associated with it in his first week of office. If we can get a man like Ron Paul in office that would be an excellent start. Here is a man for ten terms has never voted to pass a bill that doesn’t follow the principals of the constitution. He intends to abolish the IRS and the federal
reserve & all thats associated with it in his first week of office.

]]>