tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54143052530423638992024-03-13T10:34:20.398-07:00Restoring Democracy!We have a crisis in our country. Our democracy has been co-opted by the rich, who have bought our government. Congress now serves the interests of wealthy financial backers and not those of the people. This moment in time was predicted as far back as 200 years ago, with warnings sounded over time by many individuals, some of whom are quoted in this blog. Our time has arrived. We the people must take back our democracy -- for ourselves, for our children, and for all who come after us.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-7123289398531170102013-09-03T13:41:00.002-07:002013-09-04T13:57:38.174-07:00Syria Doesn't Want America's Bombing<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style>
<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Syrian
Rebels Don't Want America's “Neutral” Bombings (updated 9/4/13)</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Obama says that his attacks will be in
opposition to the Syrian government's use of gas weapons, but will
not be pro-Assad or pro-rebels. Here is what the Koran has to say
about actions such as that:<br />
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“<i>I know your works:
you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! <br />
So, </i><i><i>because you are lukewarm</i></i><i>, </i><i><i>I
will spew you out of my mouth</i></i><i>.” -- </i><i><i>Qur'an</i></i><i>
41.51. </i>
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Syrians don't trust our government
in general</b>, and they don't trust Obama in particular. They feel
that he has sided with Israel over Arab nations in the past,
including Syria, and continues to do so. During his campaign in
2008, Obama made promises that brought Syrians hope. He called for
new policies in dealing with the Middle East. However, he readily
backed down from his earlier demands for an end to increased Israeli
settlements on Palestinian land Instead of bringing the two sides
together, he drove an even bigger wedge between them, and made
himself a person whose word cannot be trusted. They now see him as
someone who says what appeals to people, but actually acts based upon
what his advisors tell him to do.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Syrians probably scoffed </b>when
Obama said in a recent speech that America has a "moral
responsibility" to punish the Syrian government or military for
gas weapons against civilians, which has caused somewhere between
1,000 and 1,800 deaths, depending upon the source. Where was our
“moral responsibility” when Assad forces killed more than 100,000
people, leaving more than six million Syrians homeless, and more than
two million refugees fleeing for their lives? In essence, they see
America's message to the Syrian regime as, “It is okay to massacre
hundreds of thousands of civilians by ground attack, air attack, and
Scud missiles, just as long as you don't use gas on the population.
What kind of stand is that?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Obama also accused Assad as being in
violation of “international norms”</b> as a basis for his
bombing. What kind of contorted justification is this? Norms are
nothing more than expected modes of behavior based upon prior actions
or agreements. They have no legal status. And, even it they did,
who gave us the right to police international norms, and take action
whenever a country deviates from them, as perceived by us?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>And, what if we don't bomb Syria</b>
after the Obama-defined red line has been crossed? Our government
seems to be afraid that we will be viewed as being weak in the eyes
of the rest of the world, solely on the basis of not following up on
the threats of its ill-advised leader. Who cares about appearances,
when it comes to saving lives? The rest of the world certainly knows
that we still have the biggest and most powerful armaments in the
entire world which is a lot more than people's opinions. Besides,
if our government were truly interested in our image, we would never
have invade Iraq – probably the greatest military blunder in this
country's history. If we came clean with an admission that the red
line was a mistake, I think the world would view us in a much better
light than following through with a violent reaction.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>So, what should we do?</b> Very
simply, we should openly support the rebels in any way possible,
short of any direct military involvement. If our government is so
concerned about our global image,
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
that would probably greatly improve our
image in the eyes of the rebels and other nations throughout the
world (except Russia). This could, and probably should, be our
response to the Assad' regime's use of gas (if they really did),
rather than promising more bloodshed and tears for the Syrian people.
If we do intervene with bombs, then Russia might feel it's “moral
responsibility” is to defend Syria by attacking our country in
return, and then where would we be – the beginning of the Third
World War?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="background: transparent;">An
Alternative Action.</span></b> If our country's leaders believe that
a show of force is truly necessary, why sacrifice human lives to
prove that point? Why not pick some isolated targets away from any
cities or otherwise populated areas and annihilate them? That could
be interpreted as a warning shot across the bow of a ship. It should
be adequate warning to Assad and his supporters that we mean
business. If they are blind to these implications and continuing to
conduct business as usual, then we could supply the rebels with the
means not just to counter the Assad regime, but to overthrow it.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-26217381752544611282013-07-24T18:19:00.000-07:002013-07-24T18:19:24.592-07:00The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act <style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }A:link { }</style>
<br />
<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }H1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }H1.western { font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; }H1.cjk { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif; }H1.ctl { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif; }A:link { }</style><h1 align="CENTER" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: 0.01in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><b>What
It Is And Why It Doesn't Work</b></span>
</h1>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i>"The
complexity of the problem must not be underestimated. Electronic
surveillance can be a useful tool for the Government’s gathering of
certain kinds of information; yet, </i><i><b>if
abused, it can also constitute a particularly indiscriminate and
penetrating invasion of the privacy of our citizens</b></i><i>.</i><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
My objective over the past six years has been to reach some kind of
fair balance that will </span></i><i><b>protect
the security of the United States without infringing on our citizens’
human liberties and rights.</b></i><i>"
– Chief Bill Sponsor, Senator Edward Kennedy (emphasis added)</i></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>It
All Started in the Seventies. </b></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
the early 1970s, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, massive abuses of
surveillance by the FBI, the CIA, the U.S. Military, and the White
House were exposed. In response to these abuses, Congress passed the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which, in turn,
established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC or FISA
Court). Congress set up this Court to provide a system of judicial
review and approval (or denial) of the government's proposed
surveillance actions, along with necessary safeguards against abuse
whenever the surveillance might involve an American citizen. Because
foreign intelligence surveillance requires certain measures of
secrecy, the details of surveillance requests and the FISA Court's
actions are classified.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Why
We Need Control Over Government Surveillance. </b></span>
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Working behind
closed doors, the FISA Court has the authority to approve or deny
government requests for accessing and searching business or personal
information – and not just telephone metadata. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">They can also gather
specific information from e-mails chat sessions, and text messages, and any
attachments. These items can include privileged attorney-client
communication, sensitive communication between you and your doctor,
and even communication between you and your accountant, tax preparer,
financial adviser, etc. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">They can also collect information
from sites visited, uploads and downloads made, on-line shopping and
purchases – you name it: if it is digital they can access it. That
includes user IDs and passwords for protected sites you visit, including your credit card and bank accounts.
They can get such a broad array of information that they can get to
know you and your pattern of living better than your closest friends.
Anything a hacker can do, they can do, too -- only better. And they are able to do all this behind a shroud of secrecy, without
your even suspecting that they are doing it to you. That is why we
need control over such surveillance. It is too dangerous otherwise.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>The
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). </b></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
law was enacted i</span>n response to allegations
of abuse by the federal government in conducting electronic
surveillance. It was recognized that some kind of judicial warrant
should be required for such surveillance to protect citizens' rights
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This law
required the government to obtain a judicial warrant authorizing the
surveillance.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>The
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC or FISA Court)</b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
</span>This court was authorized by FISA to
review and approve or deny surveillance requests. It consists of a
pool of eleven judges, all of whom are appointed by the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Submission
of Surveillance Requests. </b></span>These are
usually originated by one of our security agencies, such as the CIA
or FBI who sends them to the NSA where warrant applications are
prepared and forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General, where
they are certified that the proposed surveillance targets are either
a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. (“Agent of a
foreign power" is defined as meaning any person, other than a
United States person, who acts in the United States as an officer or
an employee of a foreign government or any component thereof, whether
or not recognized by the United States.) If the target is a U.S.
Citizen or a resident alien, he or she must reasonably be believed to
be involved in the planning or commission of a crime that poses a
threat to our national security.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Secret
Hearings with Secret Decisions. </b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
</span>Warrant applications are then assigned on
a rotating basis to one of the FISA Court judges, who evaluates the
requests and either approves or rejects them, based entirely on the
statements of government officials. There is nobody to represent the
other side of the issue or to protect the people from potentially
overreaching requests or decisions. Because of the sensitive nature
of this surveillance, the Court's work is performed in secret, so we
never know what specific decisions are made and why, or what impact
they may have on our Constitutional rights.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR). </b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
</span>FISA also established this court to serve
somewhat like an appellate court for decisions made the the FISA
Court. This body consists of three judges, also appointed by the
Chief Justice, to review, upon request, decisions made by the FISA
Court. Because no no opposing counsel is allowed in the FISA Court
cases, the only appeals that are normally allowed are those from the
government. From 1978 to 2002, no cases were brought to this Court,
and only two are known to have been brought before it since then.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>FISCR
Rules. </b></span> The first
FISA Court of Review ruling came in 2002. The FISA Court had granted
a warrant to the FBI, but made it subject to certain restrictions,
most notably of which was that the FBI was not to use evidence
gathered under the warrant to prosecute criminal cases. The Court of
Review ruled that there was no constitutional basis for the
restrictions.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>FISCR
Rules Again. </b></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Six
years later, the Court of Review delved into another questionable
area when it ruled on and affirmed the constitutionality of the
Protect America Act of 2007.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>A
Second (But Secret) Supreme Court? </b></span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court_of_Review#cite_note-4"><span style="color: black;">I</span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">n
ruling on these two issues, the FISA Court of Review made rulings
based upon its interpretations of the Constitution, which, at the
national level, is the normally considered to be the realm of the
Supreme Court. In so doing, the Court of Review may have muddied
the line between the role of the two courts and lent credence to the
notion that the FISA Court of Review is becoming a second (but
secret) Supreme Court.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Disorder
in the Court. </b></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
2002, the Justice Department asked the FISA Court to grant them broad
new powers, but the Court refused, saying that the</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
government had misused the law and misled the court dozens of times.
The court released </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">an
opinion </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">alleging
that FBI and Justice Department officials had supplied erroneous
information to the court in more than 75 applications for search
warrants and wiretaps, including one that had been signed by the
Director of the FBI at the time.</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Bush
Administration Ignored Court. </b></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">
Apparently, the Bush administration decided to ignore the FISA Court
and the procedures for obtaining approval for surveillance. Three
years later, </span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">The
New York Times</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">
reported that the Bush administration had been conducting illegal
surveillance of U.S. citizens without the knowledge or approval of
the FISA Court since 2002. Four days later, Judge James Robertson
abruptly resigned his position as a member of the FISA Court. Congress later passed legislation making Bush's actions legal and made the law retroactive, to prevent prosecution for illegal search, and to grant immunity to the companies who provided the information to the administration.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Need for Advocate Counsel in the FISA Court.</span> </b>Former FISA Court Judge Robertson
has been quoted as saying, "Anyone who has been a judge will tell you that a judge needs to hear bot</span><span style="font-size: large;">h sides
of a case."<span style="color: black;"> He
went on to say that, since the government presents instances where it
wants to use its powers under FISA to go to the FISA Court without an
advocate for the other side, the Court is not well placed to act in an unbiased manner
and judge the merits of the case, because the Court hears only one side of the case. He said that the system is flawed
because of its failure to allow adversarial counsel to question the
government's actions. Robertson said the system needed the presence
of a legal adversary to act as a check on the government's programs. </span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Another former judge who served on the FISA Court, James Carr, has
proposed that the judges themselves could appoint independent lawyers as
special counsels on a case-by-case basis. He suggests the advocate
should also have the power to appeal FISA decisions to higher courts;
something only the government can do at this time.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Without an opposing counsel, Robertson says that when the government presents its case to the FISC without adversarial counsel, the process becomes more like administrative approval process than
a court hearing with true judgment on the merits of the case.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Some
Food for Thought. </b></span>How would you feel if eleven people,
without any meaningful oversight by, or responsibility to, a higher
authority, rotated decision-making among the individual members, one
at a time, and ruled secretly on matters that could adversely affect
your everyday life, eat away at your democracy, and destroy
Constitutional rights that deal with privacy, unreasonable search and
seizure, due process, and self-incrimination? Yet, that is exactly
we have under FISA.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>And
Even Worse . . .</b></span> Those eleven judges on the FISA Court
were all appointed by one person (a political partisan who espouses a
particular ideology), who is also without any meaningful oversight
by, or responsibility to, a higher authority, and without any
confirmation hearings, any examination of nominees' philosophies and
prior rulings on matters likely to come before the Court, without any
public input, and without confirmation or rejection of the nominees
by a government body that is elected to represent the welfare and
defend the rights of the American people?</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>But, Worst of All …</b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
A</span></span>ll of the judges who have ever served on the FISA
Court and the FISA Court of Review since it was established in 1978
have been appointed solely by conservative Chief Justices of the
Supreme Court, and the present one could continue to do so for a
combined total of 25 to 30 years. The sad part is that of all these
things are true. Through 2012, FISA Courts have approved 99.97% of
the 33,949 requests submitted to them. Does this sound like a good
system of checks and balances that should continue indefinitely?</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Heading
Away from Diversity – and Away from Democracy. </b></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
If a country allowed all appointments to such powerful positions to
be made by one person who is an established partisan politician (and
who is accountable to no one), and if these Court appointees operate
in secrecy, allowing only one side to present its case with no
advocates for the other side, could you honestly view this process as
being democratic? Overtly, we claim we live in a democracy, but
covertly we we give many indications of creeping more and more toward
a totalitarian form of government. And FISA is a major example of
this.</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Opinions
from Law Professionals</b></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Stephen Vladeck, Law Professor at American University's Washington
College of Law says: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">"Since
FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they
have all been conservative Republicans, so </span></i><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
think one can worry that there is insufficient diversity,"</span></span></i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.2in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Penn Law Professor, Theodore Ruger
says, </span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-left: 0.49in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“<i>The
judges are hand-picked by someone” (presently Chief Justice
Roberts), “who, through his votes on the Supreme Court, has
demonstrated his particular view on civil liberties and law
enforcement,. The way FISA is set up, it gives him unchecked
authority to put judges on the court who feel the same way he does."
</i></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Wouldn't
our country would be better served if these j</span><span style="font-style: normal;">udges
represented a broader spectrum of political views?</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>Which Party Is Most Likely to Support Civil Liberties?</b></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
In the last 30 years, Supreme Court justices appointed by Democratic
presidents support civil liberties claims approximately 74 percent of
the time, while those appointed by Republican presidents support
civil liberty claims only about 38 percent of the time. This is just
one example of how the justices appear to arrive at their legal
opinions -- largely along party lines. I am sure that our founding
fathers would be very disappointed if they knew that any appearance
of unbiased and nonpolitical findings and rulings seems to have all
but vanished from the Supreme Court.</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>How
does that Apply to the FISA Courts?</b></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Over their 35-year history, we find that 91% of the judges for these
courts were appointed by Republicans and only 9% were appointed by
Democrats. Out of 13 currently-filled positions, only one is
occupied by a Democrat. (One position on the three-person FISA Court
of Review has been vacant for more than a year.) Because the FISA
Court deals largely with issues involving civil liberties, and
because 10 of its 11 members are Republicans, that might explain why
the FISA Court seems to be more receptive to issuing warrants that
might impact civil liberties.</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>A
Little Help from Your Friends.</b></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Because of an extremely high rate of approval, the FISA Court has
been perceived as being a rubber stamp for the government's
surveillance requests. Apparently, there have been more than 500
requests that were not acceptable as submitted, so the FISA Court
rulings essentially told the submitters what they needed to change to
get those requests accepted. Apparently, that helped the government
get its approval rate at 99.97%</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>FISA
Secrecy Attacked. </b></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">A 2003 </span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Senate
Judiciary Committee</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i>Interim Report on FBI Oversight in
the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA
Implementation Failures</i></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">, cited the
"unnecessary secrecy" of the court among its "most
important conclusions":</span>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i>"The
secrecy of individual FISA cases is certainly necessary, but this
secrecy has been extended to the most basic legal and procedural
aspects of the FISA, which should not be secret. This unnecessary
secrecy contributed to the deficiencies that have hamstrung the
implementation of the FISA. Much more information, including all
unclassified opinions and operating rules of the FISA Court and Court
of Review, should be made public and/or provided to the Congress."
</i></span>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Allegations
of Bias.</b></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> Elizabeth Gotein, a
co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program of the
Brennan Center for Justice at the </span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">New
York University School of Law</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">,</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">
has criticized the court as being too compromised to be an impartial
tribunal that oversees the work of the NSA and other U.S.
intelligence activities. She says:<br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i>"Like
any other group that meets in secret behind closed doors with only
one constituency appearing before them, they're subject to capture
and bias."<br /></i></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><br />Julian
Sanchez</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">,
a scholar at the </span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">Cato
Institute</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">,
has described the near certainty of the polarization or group think
of the judges of the court. Because all of the judges are appointed
by the same person (the </span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">Chief
Justice of the United States</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">)
and, because nearly all the judges are of the same political party
(the </span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">Republican
Party</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">),
and because these judges hear no opposing testimony and feel no
pressure from colleagues or the public to moderate their rulings,
group polarization is almost a certainty. He says:<br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">"There's
the real possibility that these judges become more extreme over time,
even when they had only a mild bias to begin with."<br /></span></i></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b><br />Court
Approves Requests, but Not Surveillance Programs.</b></span>
Stephen Vladeck has argued that the FISA Court reviews requests
merely to ensure that they comply with various statutory
requirements, including court-approved policies allow the NSA to:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">keep data
that could potentially contain details of U.S. persons for up to
five years, and</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">retain and
make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic
communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on
criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are
encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to
cybersecurity.</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">However, the
Court does not approve the specific surveillance plan. Without
having to seek Court approval of the specifics of their plan, the
U.S. Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can
apparently engage in sweeping programmatic surveillance at their
discretion. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><b>According
to </b></span><i><b>The Guardian:</b></i></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /> </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i>"The
broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set
out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President
Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access
Americans' calls or email information without warrants."</i></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b><br />The
Most Revealing and Damaging Insight.</b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Glenn Greenwald,
who published details of the PRISM surveillance program </span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">
in </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>The
Guardian</b></span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">,</span></i></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">
explained:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“…
<i>(T)his entire process is a
fig leaf, "oversight" in name only. It offers no real
safeguards. That's because no court monitors what the NSA is actually
doing when it claims to comply with the court-approved procedures.
Once the FISA Court puts its approval stamp on the NSA's procedures,
there is no external judicial check on which targets end up being
selected by the NSA analysts for eavesdropping. The only time
individualized warrants are required is when the NSA is specifically
targeting a US citizen or the communications are purely domestic.” </i></span>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“<i>When
it is time for the NSA to obtain FISA Court approval, the agency does
not tell the court whose calls and emails it intends to intercept. It
instead merely provides the general guidelines which it claims are
used by its analysts to determine which individuals they can target,
and the FISA Court judge then issues a simple order approving those
guidelines. “</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“<i>The
court endorses a one-paragraph form order stating that the NSA's
process 'contains all the required elements' and that the revised
NSA, FBI and CIA minimization procedures submitted with the amendment
'are consistent with the requirements of [50 U.S.C. §1881a(e)] and
with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“<i>As
but one typical example, The Guardian has obtained an August 19,
2010, FISA Court approval from Judge John Bates which does nothing
more than recite the statutory language in approving the NSA's
guidelines. Once the NSA has this court approval, it can then target
anyone chosen by their analysts, and can even order telecoms and
internet companies to turn over to them the emails, chats and calls
of those they target.” </i></span>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i>The
FISA Court plays no role whatsoever in reviewing whether the
procedures it approved are actually complied with when the NSA starts
eavesdropping on calls and reading people's emails. The guidelines
submitted by the NSA to the Fisa court demonstrate how much
discretion the agency has in choosing who will be targeted.</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><i>The
only oversight for monitoring whether there is abuse comes from the
executive branch itself: from the DOJ and Director of National
Intelligence, which conduct "periodic reviews … to evaluate
the implementation of the procedure." </i></span>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“<i>At
a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee , deputy attorney
general James Cole testified that every 30 days, the FISA Court is
merely given an "aggregate number" of database searches on
US domestic phone records. The decisions about who has their emails
and telephone calls intercepted by the NSA is made by the NSA itself,
not by the FISA Court, except where the NSA itself concludes the
person is a US citizen and/or the communication is exclusively
domestic. But even in such cases, the NSA often ends up intercepting
those communications of Americans without individualized warrants,
and all of this is left to the discretion of the NSA analysts with no
real judicial oversight.”</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><b>Summary.</b></span><span style="color: black;">
</span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="font-style: normal; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>What's
Wrong with FISA?</b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><ol>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">It's
poorly worded, with terms that are either ambiguous or too broad to
be meaningful.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The
Court sometimes issues warrants or subpoenas without valid cause.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Along
with a FISA subpoena comes a gag order that bars recipients from
ever discussing it with anyone except their lawyer(s). </span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>What's
wrong with the FISA Court?</b></span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><ol>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">There
is entirely too much secrecy. Meaningful information could be
shared without revealing vital secrets. </span>
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Secrecy
can be used to cover up malfeasance. Yet, because of the secrecy, it
might never be revealed.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">FISA
Court members are appointed by one person – the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. The present Chief Justice could do this for a
total of 30-40 years, continually appointing people who share his
ideologies. </span>
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Ever
since FISA was implemented, all Chief Justices have been
Republicans, and 91% of the FISA Court members have been
Republicans. As a result, Republican Chief Justices have appointed
all of the members of both the FISA Court and the FISA Court of
Review – almost 50 appointments in total.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Democrats
tend to support civil liberties issues by almost a 2 to 1 margin
over Republicans. If</span></span> Republicans on the FISA Court
follow suit, we cannot trust them to fully protect our civil
liberties.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The
FISA Court hears only one side of a case, so they are more likely to
rule in favor of that side. As of 2012, the FISA Court ruled in
favor of the government 33,938 times out of 33,949 cases.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Requests
for warrants or court orders are heard by only one of the seven
judges, who serve on a rotating basis. They meet as a group only
about six times a year.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>What's wrong with the FISA Court of Review?</b></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><ol>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">This
body consists of three members, and functions somewhat like an
appellate court. However, because 99.97% of the cases in the FISA
Court are decided in the favor of the government, there have been
very few cases for them to review.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">At
least twice, this court has overstepped its authority in making
rulings on constitutionality, which are normally reserved for the
Supreme Court. </span>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></u></span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></span></u></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">
Connecticut Senator, Richard Blumenthal, summed things up very
concisely:</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“<i>The
FISA court . . . in its current form — unaccountable, secretive,
one-sided — is broken. It not only lacks any genuine transparency
and accountability, but it also deprives the entire system of trust
and credibility in the eyes of the American people. The FISA
court is exactly the type of secret tribunal that fanned the flames
of revolution we celebrate each July 4. It’s time to change that.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><i></i><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><br />What Next?</b></span></span></u></span></span><span style="color: navy; font-size: large;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;"></span></span></u></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> We will see ongoing debate on these issues to give the impression that Congress as a whole really cares about protecting the privacy of the American people. They don't want to risk their chances of getting re-elected by not showing proper concern. However, I have seen little movement toward anything but token legislative changes that will do very little to address these problems. I hope I am wrong.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><< Where secrecy prevails, democracy fails. >></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i> </i></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: -0.49in; padding: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: -0.49in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }H1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }H1.western { font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; }H1.cjk { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif; }H1.ctl { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif; }A:link { }</style>
<br />
<h1 align="CENTER" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
</h1>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span>
<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }H1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }H1.western { font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; }H1.cjk { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif; }H1.ctl { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif; }A:link { }</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-78877282046110563702013-07-23T12:35:00.000-07:002013-08-17T11:57:43.546-07:00Congress Speaks on Surveillance Program<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.00in; }</style> <br />
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<h2>
</h2>
<h2 class="articleHeadline" itemprop="headline">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/us/politics/bipartisan-backlash-grows-against-domestic-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Bipartisan Backlash Grows Against Domestic Surveillance</span></a></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">Response to an article by James Risen<b><br />
New York Times, July 18, 2013 </b></span></h2>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Is there really a Congressional backlash against domestic surveillance? And, if so, what are its chances of success in reforming this surreptitious practice? Here are some responses to major parts of this New York Times report. The <i>Italicized</i> text is from the NYT article.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br />
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>The Obama administration faced a growing Congressional backlash against the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance operations . . . as lawmakers from both parties called for the vast collection of private data on millions of Americans to be scaled back.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Is this backlash real? Or is it a just public display of pseudo-concern to assuage the concerns of their constituents?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Senator Al Franken, Democratic of Minnesota, said in an interview that he planned to introduce legislation mandating public disclosure of programs.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
How much public disclosure? We already have some disclosure, thanks to whistleblowers, who had to break the law to make some things public. Besides, it is not just disclosure we need, but rigid controls, strict oversight, ongoing auditing of procedures and practices; and objective, unbiased reports from the Inspector General on at least a quarterly basis, with monthly status and progress reports. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>. . . Republicans and Democrats told administration officials that they </i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>believed</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i> the government had exceeded the surveillance authorities granted by Congress, and </i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>warned</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i> that they were </i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>unlikely to be reauthorized</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i> in the future.” </i></span>(emphasis added)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Believed? </b> Isn't there enough evidence to <u>prove</u> they exceeded their authority? <b>Warned?</b> A warning isn't action or even a guarantee that there will be action taken. <b>Unlikely? </b> Another weasel word. That means only that they don't want to commit to any specific action. And, why wait for reauthorization in 2015? If what they are doing is bad enough to deny reauthorization, two years form now, why isn't that sufficient to revoke their privileges now?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, said that no one in Congress believed that the counterterrorism laws enacted since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were meant to allow for the collection of phone records of virtually everyone in America.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
If that were true, then why didn't the specifically exclude it in the laws? Before the Computer Age, phone tapping was a primary way of gathering intelligence. Why wouldn't it occur to them that collecting everybody's phone records could become a valuable source of information as well? And, why didn't they write their legislation to specifically exclude collecting phone call information? There are so many loopholes and vague terms in that legislation that different people can interpret it in different ways.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“”<span style="font-size: small;"><i>The government is stockpiling sensitive personal data on a grand scale,' said Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida.” </i></span> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And they are doing it in secret. Much of the information they collect is of no meaningful value at the present time. But they hold onto it for five years, just in case there may be some future use for it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Intelligence officers, contractors and personnel only need a rubber-stamp warrant from the FISA court to then learn virtually everything there is to know about an American citizen.” </i></span> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Members of the FISA Court deny the rubber-stamp procedure, but what is an intelligent person to conclude, when only 11 requests were denied in the 34-year period ending in 2012, while 33,938 requests were approved?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>. . . several lawmakers said that the data collection was unsustainable, and that Congress would move to either revoke the legislative authorization for the bulk collection now or at least refuse to renew it when it expires in 2015.“</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At least someone is thinking somewhat along the right lines. However, I still have to ask this question: If they truly believe that the government is doing something untenable and want to do something about it, why would they even consider waiting another two years and let the government continue “business as usual” during that time? Are they perhaps thinking that the issue won't seem as important then, so they won't have to do anything?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Mr. Sensenbrenner interrupted James Cole, a deputy attorney general, to say, 'Unless you realize you’ve got a problem, that is not going to be renewed.'”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Realizing you've got a problem is not sufficient. You have to rectify the problem, or it will persist. We need corrective action, and strict oversight now and rigid processes to prevent abuses in the future.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Much of the controversy involves the agency’s bulk collection of telephone data, which includes which numbers have called other numbers and time and length of calls, but not the content.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is my opinion that the primary emphasis is on the telephone metadata because that is the easiest to defend, as long as they record only what they say they do, and never gather or search content. However, I think the other collections are far more invasive and, therefore, more important. This includes items with specific content that is open to damaging misinterpretation and violations of Constitutional rights of unreasonable search and seizure, as well as immunity from self-incrimination.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Government requests include accessing and searching business or personal information – and not just telephone metadata. They also gather specific information from e-mails and text messages, and any attachments. These can include privileged attorney-client communication, sensitive communication between you and your doctor, and even communication between you and your accountant, tax preparer, financial advisor, bankers, etc. They can also collect information from sites visited, uploads and downloads made, on-line shopping and purchases –- you name it: if it is digital they can access it, including IDs and passwords for your credit cards and bank accounts. They can get such a broad array of information that they can get to know you and your pattern of living better than your closest friends. And they are able to do all this behind a shroud of secrecy, without your even suspecting that they are doing it to you. That is why we need strict control over such surveillance, access, and analysis It is too dangerous otherwise.</span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>In a letter to top administration officials, the group will ask that the government start opening up the surveillance process by allowing companies to publicly disclose the number of secret requests for data they receive from the N.S.A., the number of individuals the requests cover, and whether the requests involve the content of communications or other data, according to a draft of the letter and interviews with officials from the companies and organizations involved.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What would this accomplish? Just reporting gross numbers is virtually meaningless and does nothing whatsoever to control the intrusive capture and usage of information.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>The group, which includes Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter, and organizations including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, urge in their letter that the government publish the same information, and that Congress should enact new legislation mandating <b>greater openness</b> in the surveillance process.” </i><span style="font-style: normal;">(emphasis added)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What constitutes “greater openness?” Publishing raw numbers would probably be greater openness, but it does nothing to protect hundreds of millions of people from having their private information collected in the first place, or having it exposed to illegitimate or undesirable usage.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>The letter does not demand an end to the domestic surveillance.” </i></span> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It might not have to if it had a high level of justification, some rigid controls and close oversight.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>But it is still significant because it allies the corporations that are directly involved with the government’s surveillance collection with some of the most vocal critics of the administration’s efforts to keep the N.S.A. domestic spying program in the shadows.“</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
To me, this appears to be more of a public relations ploy on the part of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter. They can make this a win-win case for them if they can create the impression that they are on their customers' side, not big government, even if big government prevails in the end..</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. 'I think the situation is extremely fluid, but I know a lot of people are interested in doing something.'”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Being “interested in doing something” and actually doing something worthwhile can often be two totally different things.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<i>Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said in an interview that he planned to introduce legislation mandating public disclosure along the same lines as the recommendations in the coalition’s letter, while Representative Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat, said in an interview that he was planning to introduce similar legislation in the House on Thursday.”</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
If “public disclosure” means just publishing a bunch of total numbers, as mentioned above, this is meaningless.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>On Tuesday, Mr. Sensenbrenner and Representative Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who is the ranking minority member on the judiciary panel, sent a letter to Mr. Holder and James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, also asking that the companies </i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>be allowed to disclose more information publicly about government demands for data.” </b></i></span><b> </b><span style="font-weight: normal;">(emphasis added)</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“Be allowed?” How about “be required?” “More information?” How much is more?”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Mr. Sensenbrenner released a letter Wednesday from the Justice Department, defending the scope and the legality of the government’s surveillance operations. The department said that it was necessary for the N.S.A. to collect such large volumes of domestic telephone data to perform the analysis necessary to identify suspected terrorist activity.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Just saying it is necessary may reflect that letter writer's opinion, but it doesn't make it a fact. It also does not establish any legality for such collection, while the Constitution does establish rights for Americans to protect them against such invasions of privacy.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>"Mr. Franken said that he believed the administration now agreed that there needed to be greater public debate and disclosure, even though the White House has continued to defend the secret programs. “I think that if there were greater transparency, Americans would have </i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>a better understanding</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i> of these programs,” he said." </i></span>(emphasis added)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
They might have a better understanding, but that doesn't mean they would approve of them.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>"While prominent Internet companies are pushing for fuller disclosure, some of the nation’s largest telecommunications firms were not willing to sign on, according to several people involved in the coalition. Some of those businesses have previously received legal immunity from Congress for their involvement with the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, and have close and longstanding ties to the N.S.A."</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
These companies actually are paid by the government for providing this information. I would also be suspicious of any company who has “close and longstanding ties to the N.S.A.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>But the Silicon Valley Internet firms that did sign did so because they are increasingly concerned that the N.S.A. controversy that erupted in the wake of Mr. Snowden’s disclosures </i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>could damage their credibility,</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i> particularly with customers overseas.” </i></span> (emphasis added)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I am sorry, but I think their credibility has already been damaged. They would be better off if they backed less surveillance that is highly restrictive, with more stringent control, to ease the damage they have already incurred.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;"><i>'The commercial issue is whether people around the world are going to trust American Internet companies with their data,' said Andrew McLaughlin, the chief executive of Digg, a social news Web site, and a former White House Internet policy adviser in the Obama administration. 'If you are in the government in Germany, you might think twice about using an American company as your cloud partner. You might see American companies not winning those kinds of contracts.'”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And well they should think twice about using a company that is open to divulging any and all private information their citizens may have revealed, both directly through actual communications or indirectly through metadata.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We still have a long way to go, but I don't think Congress is even going in the right direction on this issue. I still think they might be decoying us in the wrong direction to divert our attention from the real issues in this controversy. Then, I believe they will make a few cosmetic changes, declare victory for the people, and the government will move on with little or no change.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-1794132516261514462013-06-25T13:41:00.000-07:002013-08-17T12:12:39.534-07:00Focus on Our Government -- Not on Snowden<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }A:link { }</style> <br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">What to Look for from Our Government and the News</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Watch Out for Diversionary Tactics.</b> Why is so much attention being directed at Edward Snowden? Is he really a traitor – an enemy of the State? Why is he being castigated by massive numbers of Republicans and Democrats in Congress and members of the present administration for his recent actions? The answer is simple. It is to divert attention away from the very thing Snowden has protested – our government's malfeasance and disregard for the Constitutional rights of our citizens. As long as they can keep Snowden in the headlines, and as long as they can keep the conversation fixed on him, they can keep themselves and their own misdeeds out of sight.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Don't Believe Everything You Hear.</b> Most of what we have heard from government officials and spokespeople has been very carefully worded to make things revealed by Snowden are more devastating that the really are. They say that the safety and security of our people has been compromised by the release of secret information. Here are just a few examples:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Rep. Mike Rogers</span></span></b><span style="font-size: small;"> Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee warned </span><i><span style="font-size: small;">“It’s dangerous to our national security and it violates the oath that person took.”</span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">John Boehner</span></span></b><span style="font-size: small;">, Speaker of the House, claimed, </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk.”</i></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, complained that recent leaks could </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>"render great damage to our intelligence capabilities."</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> In addition, when asked whether or not the NSA collects </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> He responded, </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“No, sir. Not wittingly.”</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> He has since admitted that his testimony was </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“the least untrue”</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> statement he could make, whatever that means. But, regardless, it means that he was lying to Congress and the American people under oath and should be charged with perjury.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Jay Carney</span></span></b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">, </span></span><span style="font-size: small;">White House Press Secretary, recently stated, </span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“Leaks of classified information that cause harm to our national security interests are a problem, a serious problem …”</i></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But</span></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">, where's the damage? This litany of fault-finding and blame permeates much of our federal government. However, nobody has yet described in a meaningful way just what damage has been done other than to embarrass our government and its elected representatives.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Jay Carney Went a Step Further.</b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> He added </span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“... and they’re classified for a reason…”</i></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> He is absolutely right in this statement. They </span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>are</u></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> classified for a reason – and that reason is to hide the government's actions in a cloud of secrecy from the American people, not our enemies. Our enemies most likely already know about our spying on their citizens because they are most likely doing the same to us. So, when our government wants to do something that is illegal or not in the best interests of our country and its people, all they have to do is just classify it as top secret, to prevent the public from knowing what they are really doing.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Privacy Compromised Without Consent.</b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> Our government's secret acts of espionage were conducted without the knowledge and consent of the people whose privacy was invaded. We, the people, had no say in the matter. Our government took it upon themselves to determine for us which rights are important to us and what are not. We were not consulted. They made those decisions on their own in privacy and cloaked them in secrecy to keep them from learning about them under penalty of imprisonment. The American people have a right to know when and why their privacy is being invaded. Our freedoms are being eroded, our Constitutional rights are being trampled, and our government is destroying our democracy. America is becoming a surveillance state and, in certain circumstances, takes on the demeanor of a police state. The lack of oversight and protection against the potential misuse of data collected is a severe indictment of both previous and present administrations, as well as Congress itself.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Bush's Bad Behavior.</b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> In 2005, George Bush admitted publicly that he had ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally-required court-approved warrants – an impeachable offense -- but Congress chose not to pursue that route, which lets us know just how important our freedom and rights are to them. At least, the United States Supreme Court did step in. They ruled that the President does not have that kind of power within the Constitution. Bush had the power to protect the nation, but his surveillance actions went beyond that. </span></span></i> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>How Things Have Changed.</b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> Our present government is doing some of the same things on an even broader scale, but with the tacit approval of the feckless Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a body set up specifically to provide oversight for foreign intelligence surveillance, to approve or disallow the issuance of warrants, and whose rulings and opinions are kept top secret.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i> </i> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>About the FISC.</b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court consists of eleven judges. Three of them are in Washington, D.C., and the other eight are spread out in eight different states across the county. Appointments are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with no apparent review, oversight, or approval process for these appointments. Oddly enough, the four most populous states (California, Texas, New York and Florida), which have 1/3 of the country's population, do not have any representation on this court. California alone has a greater population that the bottom 21 states added together, but that's beside the point.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>The Express Lane for Surveillance Warrants. </b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> Whenever the administration wants a warrant, it contacts one of the eleven judges – frequently, if not usually, by phone – and presents its case to them. It is entirely a one-sided presentation representing the administration's best interests, with no legal counsel to represent the other side. And the administration cannot always be relied upon to make an accurate presentation of facts. At one point, the Court charged that the FBI and Justice Department officials had submitted “erroneous” information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Rubber Stamped Warrants.</b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> In most cases, the one judge makes the determination, not the entire “court.” And here's the shocker: Out of 33,949 requests for warrants in the Court's history, only 11 have been declined. That has given credence to the claim by Russell Tice, a former NSA analyst, who said "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp." To indicate that this body maintains credible oversight over the issuing of surveillance warrants is somewhats laughable. My personal perception is that the FISC is a court in name only, and that it functions more to streamline the process of securing warrants than evaluating their purpose and value relative to the rights of the people.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>The FISC Has Lower Standards. </b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Keep in mind that the FISC operates at a lower standard of scrutiny than a “real” court. </span></span></i> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, a warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime </span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>has been</u></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> or </span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>is being committed</u></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">. However, the FISC does not abide by this Constitutional stipulation, Instead, it makes its rulings based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, regardless of whether or not the target is suspected of actually engaging in any criminal activity. <br />
<br />
However, if the target is a "U.S. person,”</span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><i> t</i></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"><i>he FISC judge has to find probable cause</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> that one of four conditions has been met:</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0.04in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: small;">(1) the target <i>knowingly</i> engages in clandestine intelligence activities <u>on behalf of a foreign power</u> which <u>may or may not involve a criminal law violation; </u></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0.04in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: small;">(2) the target <i>knowingly</i> engages in other secret intelligence activities <span style="font-style: normal;"><u>on behalf of a foreign power</u></span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>under the direction of an intelligence network</u></span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span>and his (or her) <u>activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations;</u></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0.04in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: small;">(3) the target <i>knowingly</i> e<u>ngages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities</u>; or</span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">(4) the target </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">knowingly</span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><u>aids or abets another who acts in at least one of the above ways</u></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">.</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> (Source:</span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><a href="http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/">Electronic Privacy Information Center</a>)</span></span></i></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Please note that a recurrent keyword in each of these conditions is “knowingly.” How many of the hundreds of millions of people caught up in the tide of communications surveillance in the U.S. are likely to fit any of these descriptions? And yet, these hundreds of millions are being forced to give up totally private or sensitive information about themselves without their knowledge or informed consent. This could include privileged communication between lawyers and their clients, or doctors and their patients, as well as various other types of very personal information. </span></span></i> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>The Final Question.</b></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> Now that I have stated my case, I present this final question to the reader: Which is more </span></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">reprehensible</span></span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">:</span></span></i></div>
<ul><div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i>– <span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">a huge government apparatus that breaks (or stretches) the law, tramples on the</span></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> rights of millions, and covers it up with a blanket of secrecy, or</span></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> – one private citizen who broke <i></i>his oath of silence and risked his entire future to </span></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> expose<i> </i>clandestine actions that could be harmful to the public?</span></span></i><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Or, to put it another way:</span></span></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:0]">Which is worse? </span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:1]" /><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:2]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:3]">A secret surveillance program, </span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:4]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:6]"> with secret submissions</span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:8]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:9]"> to a secret court, </span><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:12]"> </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:12]"> for secret data searches</span><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:15]"> </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:15]"> of secret targets,</span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:17]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:18]"> with secret (rubber-stamp) rulings, </span><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:21]"> </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:21]"> secret justification for the rulings, and </span><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:24]"> </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:24]"> subsequent secret actions </span><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:27]"> </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:27]"> that violate our Constitutional rights? </span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:28]" /><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:29]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:30]">Or . . .</span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:31]" /><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:32]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:33]">Breaking an oath of secrecy </span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:34]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:36]"> by revealing those secret practices </span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:37]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:39]"> that violate our Constitutional rights?</span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:40]" /><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:41]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:42]">We are now living in a high-level surveillance state. </span><br id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:43]" /><span id=".reactRoot[8451777].[2]{comment591187457578284_6214321}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:44]"> What's next -- a police state?</span></span></span></div>
</ul>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-86395170080852506702013-05-26T16:15:00.001-07:002013-05-26T16:48:56.399-07:00The Road to Social Cohesion<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
“<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>It's<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span>the<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span>Same<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span>the<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span>Whole<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span>World<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span>Over.” </b> The ever-widening gap between the “haves”
and the “have-nots” continues to inflame and infuriate people
around the world and stands strongly in the way of social cohesion
and the benefits it can bring. This gap has been with us for centuries,
but it is rearing its ugly head right now because the gap is increasing
at an alarming rate. The social divis<span style="font-size: medium;">ion caused by this gap is even documented</span> in this old folk song<span style="font-size: medium;">:</span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.97in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">"It's
the same the whole world over,<br /> It's the poor what gets the
blame,<br /> It's the rich what gets the pleasure,<br /> Isn't it a
blooming shame?"</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Obligation of the Rich.</b>
First of all, I want to go on record as saying that I have no harsh
feelings for rich people in general. However, when their tremendous
wealth comes either directly or indirectly from the sweat and labor
of others, then I believe they have a moral obligation to help those
people who helped them make their billions.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Our Protectors of
Society.</b> When the elite in our countries fail to to live up to
their obligations to society, then society itself must do something
about it. Government was founded to preserve, protect and defend our
society. They pass laws (presumably for the good of society),
administer those laws (presumably in an equitable manner), they
punish offenders (also presumably in an equitable manner (although
they do not always succeed, and it is usually the wealthy who get the
breaks).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Privileged Advantage. </b>
I daresay advance the notion that many of the rich have accumulated
their massive wealth by enjoying a privileged advantage over the
lower <span style="font-size: medium;">socioeconomic</span> groups. In doing so, they have exacted a toll
on these groups that is not unlike that of servitude and dependency
and, in some cases, have even come close to enslavement.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Formula for Success? </b>
With that as a background, here is the basis of my proposal for
narrowing the <span style="font-size: medium;">socioeconomic</span> gap and opening the doors to a more
cohesive society.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Education leads to
better communication among <span style="font-size: medium;">socioeconomic</span> groups.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Communication leads
to better understanding among <span style="font-size: medium;">socioeconomic</span> groups</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Understanding leads
to better cooperation among <span style="font-size: medium;">socioeconomic</span> groups.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Cooperation leads to
better results that benefit all socioeconomic groups.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">While that might sound
simple enough, it may take some stretching of the imagination to
swallow the medicine for a cure.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Free Education. </b> There
should be equal educational opportunities for all.
Government-sponsored scholarships should be awarded to anybody
seeking an education that will lead to the student being trained to
make worthwhile contributions to society. These scholarships would
be based upon need in such a way that those families who have annual
earnings above a certain level
would be ineligible for these scholarships, inasmuch as they would already
have the means to fund education without relying on the rest of
society. In addition, these scholarships would allow students to
compete for the schools of their choice, and not just the local
community or junior colleges. They would be required to take
aptitude tests and plan a curriculum around those aptitudes.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Even if they choose a
craft or trade, they would still benefit from a general college
curriculum that could supplement and be integrated with their career
goals. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Communication. </b> By
having socio-economic integration within the schools, we should
benefit from an increase in communication between the different
groups. Indeed, even those students who choose a craft or trade
would benefit, not just in their chosen field, could also from
courses that increase their communication skills in the outside
world.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Understanding.</b>
Only through educational integration and social interaction can we
hope to have a compelling understanding of how the other
socio-economic groups truly live their lives. Our country used to
be a melting pot for immigrants. Our educational system can now
become our melting pot for the different socio-economic groups. By
securing a meaningful education and communication skills, we have the
basis for productive interaction among the various groups. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Cooperation.</b> When
people of different groups get to know one another, communicate at
similar language levels, and get to understand one another, barriers
are broken down. Stereotypes are demolished. People of disparate
interests and backgrounds will begin to work together as a more
cohesive unit to produce desired results.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Results.</b> When they
work side by side with one another in a mutually cooperative,
cohesive and productive environment, that should also carry over to
their private lives as well. Instead of living lives of desperation
in a society where the odds are stacked against them from their first
breath of life, they will be able to look toward the future with
purpose and optimism, and a drive to succeed.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Education + Jobs =
Results.</b> Beyond their education, our government should also
provide employment for any qualified job prospect. Reliance on
private industry to create jobs is totally dependent on making a
profit, and not on what is best for one's country. For those who
have difficulty in gaining experience to make them more valuable to
prospective employers, the government should fund public works
projects (roads, highways, bridges, transportation systems, schools,
libraries, museums, parks and recreational centers, and other
infrastructure projects that have been neglected for many decades).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Show Me the Money. </b>
All of this will undoubtedly cost a great deal of money . There is
not way I could cost this out for any country – even my own. But I
do know the resources are out there and can be made available. Where
there is a will, there is a way.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Increased Taxes and Reduced Costs. </span></b>I see two major sources of
revenue as being increased taxation – primarily at the highest
levels – and cost reduction – in our social programs (welfare,
unemployment compensation, law enforcement, courts, prisons,
rehabilitation programs, and many, many others). In our American
past, we have had maximum income tax rates as high as 90%, and our
economy and society prospered during these times. I would not be
averse to a ten-year progressive incr<span style="font-size: medium;">ease</span> in taxation across the board, even up to the rates implemented <span style="font-size: medium;">in the US in the late 1940s,</span> to give
this plan a chance to succeed. If it does not, then we pull the plug
on it and go back to what we had before – huge socio-economic gaps,
increased tension between groups, social unrest, serious crime rates,
a deteriorating infrastructure, and all the kinds of problems that go
with social division, as compared to social cohesion.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Additional Benefits.</b> The country
would benefit greatly from having more money put back into the
economy from the salaries of the people working on federal projects.
And society would benefit from the greatly improved and safer
infrastructure.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">It would take a far better
economic analyst than I could ever be to determine the costs and the
offsetting cost savings of these two programs. However, until one
comes along to provide such figures, I will remain a cockeyed
optimist that it can be and should be done.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-7289290931730593612013-03-01T07:02:00.000-08:002013-05-27T18:17:58.272-07:00Gun Control -- or Guns Out of Control????<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Which Do You Prefer?</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><b><br />
</b></i></span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><b>“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, </b></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><b>the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”</b></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><b>-- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution </b></i></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Introduction</i>.</b> The twenty-seven words cited above are the basis for a long-standing battle over whether or not private citizens have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms individually, in any manner they choose, and without any restraint, restrictions, controls or other forms of regulation by the government. This blog offers my personal views on the subject, along with some suggestions on how we might be able to break the impasse that divides us and reach an equitable, reasonable, and acceptable accommodation on the subject. First, however, let's examine the text above and its meaning.</span><br />
<i><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> </i><span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>What is a Militia</i>?</u></b> Simply stated, a militia is a collective body of citizen soldiers enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for training, but who serve full time only in emergencies. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>What is a “Well-Regulated” Militia?</i></u></b></span><span style="font-size: large;"> The word “regulated” is defined as “controlled or directed by rules, principles, methods, etc.” Based upon many sources from around the time our Constitution was drafted, the term ”well-regulated militia” is one that is thoroughly trained, highly-disciplined, with a certain level of expertise in military movements, that functions as a coordinated unit. Alexander Hamilton indicated that a well-regulated militia is maintained in a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. He wrote in Federalist Paper No. 29:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> </span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“... going through military exercises and evolutions </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">as often as might</span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> be </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">necessary </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> to acquire the (desired) degree of perfection ... </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">would </span></i></b><br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">e</span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ntitle (a militia) </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">to e character of a well regulated militia </span>...”</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Is the National Guard a Well-Regulated Militia?</i></u></b> Yes. It meets the requirements cited above. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><u><b><i>Is Our Existing Body of Firearm Owners a Well-Regulated Militia?</i></b></u> No. It does not meet the requirements cited above. What we presently have is a huge, uncoordinated mass of generally untrained and undisciplined gun owners throughout our country, very few of which have much expertise in military movements or maneuvers. They do not constitute a “well-regulated militia.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Who Are “The People?”</i></u></b> The preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins with three simple but very crucial words, “We, the people ....” The word “people” is a collective noun. The legal definition of the word is “the aggregate of the individuals who comprise a state or nation.” Its usage in Constitutional law refers to “the entire body of those citizens of a state or a nation.” Therefore, the Constitution does guarantee the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, but only as part of well-regulated militias only, and not as private individuals.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>What Happened to Our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms?</i></u></b> Nothing. The Constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” extends only to members of a “well-regulated militia.” It does not apply to private gun ownership for personal security, sport, recreation, or hobbies. This amendment does not prohibit gun ownership for these activities. It just doesn't guarantee such ownership as a Constitutional right.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Does This Mean We Have to Surrender Our Guns?</i></u></b> No, not necessarily. The Constitution establishes the right for the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-organized militia, but it does not prohibit gun ownership by private citizens for their personal use. The difference is that private ownership outside a militia is considered to be a privilege, and not a Constitutional right.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Can Our Government Ban Firearms for Private Individuals? Yes. Because gun ownership outside a militia is a privilege and not a right, our government can exercise control over their distribution, ownership, and use. However, banning all guns from private possession might not be advisable.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><u>What Can We Learn from History?</u></b> </i> In 1920, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, banning the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Positioned right at the onset of the Roaring Twenties, prohibition was doomed to failure from the start. Alcohol became the product of the underground. It flourished in the black market, and was eventually taken over by organized crime. Prohibition fostered corruption and disdain for the law and law enforcement. In 1927, Al Capone reportedly took in $60 million and bragged that he had half of Chicago's police force on his payroll. By that year. there were an estimated 30,000 speakeasies in the country – twice the number of legal bars and saloons prior to prohibition. Raids in New York were severely curtailed after raids uncovered some of the City's top officials and leading citizens at some of the speakeasies. At least one U.S. President, Warren Harding, served liquor openly at the White House during prohibition.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>If Success Builds on Success, Can Failure Breed Failure?</i></u></b> We did not succeed in controlling the consumption of liquor by banning it. We are not succeeding with our war on drugs. And, if we were to totally ban firearms for individual use in this country, we would undoubtedly fail again.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Why Ban Firearms But Not Motor Vehicles?</i></u></b> In discussions of firearm regulation, pro-gun advocates often cite the maxim, “Guns don't kill people; people kill people.” The same could be said for motor vehicles: “Cars don't kill people; people kill people.” The primary reason for this comparison is apparently that both contribute to tens of thousands of deaths per year in this country.. However, while many people call for an outright ban of civilian-owned firearms, there is no such outcry for an ban on motor vehicles. We might learn something by comparing guns to cars and how differently these two entities are viewed and have been handled.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>What Are the Facts About Cars vs Firearms?</i></u></b> Motor vehicles have been involved in more deaths per year than firearms for quite some time, but that gap has been closing for many years, and firearms are about to overtake motor vehicles when it comes to numbers of deaths. It is not the purpose or intent of this paper to validate or invalidate either side in this issue. Rather, it is to examine the similarities and dissimilarities between the two and how they are handled.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> <u><b> </b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>A Comparison Between Motor Vehicles and Firearms</b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b> </b></u> </span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<u style="font-size: x-large;">Motor vehicles</u><span style="font-size: large;"> were designed and are manufactured primarily for </span><u style="font-size: x-large;">transportation</u><span style="font-size: large;">.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Firearms</u> were designed and are manufactured primarily for <u>killing</u>.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Motor vehicles</u> are rarely used for suicide or homicide, but are mostly involved in <u>accidents</u>.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Firearms</u> are rarely involved in accidents, but are mostly involved in <u>acts of violence</u>. </span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">When a <u>motor vehicle</u> is instrumental in taking lives, such an incident is usually involuntary, without any intent of violence, and is usually classified as an <u>accident</u>.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">When a <u>firearm</u> is instrumental in taking lives, such an incident is usually deliberate, with an intent of violence, and is usually classified as a <u>homicide or a suicide</u>.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">People are <u>less negative</u> about <u>involuntary accidents</u>.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">People are <u>very negative</u> about <u>deliberate acts of violence</u>.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">People in general tend to look upon <u>motor vehicles</u> as being <u>very important to their way of life</u>.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">People in general tend to look upon <u>firearms</u> as a <u>potential threat to their way of life.</u></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Motor vehicles</u> are <u>very heavily regulated</u> with regard to safety.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Firearms</u> are subject to <u>relatively few regulations</u> with regard to safety.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> </span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><u><i>How Do We Bring the Two Sides Together?</i></u></b><span style="font-size: large;"> First of all, we need to realize that both sides are interested in and concerned about safety and security. They just have different perspectives and approaches to achieving this. Anti-gun people need to accept the fact that a total ban on firearms is not the solution. Pro-gun people need to accept the fact that that firearms are out of control and need more regulation. Without this mutual understanding, we will never reach an acceptable resolution of this situation.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><u><i><b>What Might Be A Workable Solution?</b></i></u> Pro-gun advocates have asked why anti-gun advocates would like to see a ban on guns but not on motor vehicles that are as lethal as guns. Perhaps that question should be asked differently:. Why shouldn't firearms be subject to regulations similar to those for motor vehicles? The following steps, common to most motor vehicles, should also apply to guns. It wouldn't totally eliminate our fatality problems, but it could go a long way toward establishing accountability, responsibility, and tracking ability for firearms, which should eventually decrease the number of gun-related fatalities by a huge amount. At least it would be a step in the right direction. ”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>Firearm Registration.</u></i></b> On an annual basis, all firearm owners would be required to register their firearms by a unique identification number permanently affixed to each weapon. Registration fees would vary, based upon class, model, and intended use. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons would be subject to more stringent procedures, justification, and approval, because of the increased danger to the public. A national firearm registry could be checked to ensure that the gun was legally procured and has been used in a lawful manner. Such checks would be repeated for each renewal of registration.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>Insurance and Notification Requirements</u></i></b>. Gun owners would be required to maintain and provide proof of liability insurance for each firearm they own and submit to possible safety inspection of the weapon(s) as well as provide evidence of safe storage. They would also be required to notify the appropriate agency, within prescribed legal time limits, of the purchase, sale, donation, gift, theft, salvage, or location of any owned firearms. They must also notify the appropriate authority, within applicable time limits, of any change of owner's address.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>Responsibility and Accountability of Ownership.</u></i></b> The greatest element of this proposal lies with the owners of firearms. Owners would have to assume all responsibility for the safekeeping and safe operation of their firearms, as well as for the consequences of failure to do so in a lawful manner. This includes ensuring that the firearms are stored in a secure place that is kept locked at all times whenever it contains one or more weapons. In addition, all guns should be equipped with trigger locks which must be used at all times, except when the firearm is in actual use. Preferably, the storage unit should also have an alarm connected to an alarm control center to monitor and alert the owners and/or police in the event of unauthorized access to the storage unit. Weapon owners could be charged with criminal neglect for failure to comply with the safekeeping provisions.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><u><i><b>Operator's License</b></i></u>. Before any individuals would be authorized to operate a firearm, they must be licensed for each class or type of weapon they plan to use. They would have to pass both a written and a performance test to demonstrate their knowledge and competence in each class of firearm for which they desire to be licensed. Licenses would be valid for five years and renewed as established by the issuing jurisdiction.. Retesting and re-inspection of the firearm(s) at each renewal point would be up to the issuing jurisdiction. In addition, the owner would also have to undergo a background check to ensure that he or she did not have a criminal record, a history of violence or threats of violence, or any mental condition that might be result in hostile action with the weapon. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>What About Use by Somebody Other Than the Owner?</u></i></b> If any firearm is knowingly used by a friend or a member of the owner's family, that owner would be responsible for determining in advance that any person using such a weapon is legally licensed to operate that class of weapon. The weapon owner, as well as the person using such a weapon, could be charged criminally for any unlawful use of such firearms, and would be legally liable to any damages incurred or lawsuits that might ensue as a result of such use, including homicide.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>What About Ammunition and Magazines?</u></i></b> Ammunition would be sold based upon documented need. All sales would have to be done in person – no more mail order or purchases for others. The purchaser would also have to provide the registration of the gun in which the ammunition is to be used. Such purchases will be recorded in the central registry and excessive purchase could be flagged for investigation. Magazines will be limited in capacity to a reasonable level appropriate to the owner's intended use.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>What About Concealed Weapons Permits?</u></i></b> These would be handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the applicant's stated need. Permits would be valid for one year, subject to renewal yearly based upon demonstrated need. Permits would be valid for a specified time period and renewed for an additional period upon expiration.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>What About Automatic and Semi-Automatic Weapons?</u></i></b> Existing weapons of this type could be subject to a “grandfather” clause, which would allow them to remain with their owners for a period of up to five years, subject to proper registration, licensing, and insurance requirements. After that time, the need for such weapons would have to be justified on a year-to-year basis, just as newly-purchased weapons of these types would be. Failure to comply with any of these requirements can result in a forfeiture of all such weapons and an automatic suspension from gun ownership or operation for a minimum period specified by the governing jurisdiction. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>Who Pays for the Costs of This Program?</u></i></b> Ultimately, it would be the owner. Just as gasoline for cars includes taxes in the price of the fuel, so too could these be included in both the weapons and the ammunition costs. Gun licensing and firearm registration fees could also address the costs of administering those programs.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>What About Firearm Manufacturers?</u></i></b> Motor vehicle manufacturers have been required over the years to implement new safety features ranging from such items as tempered glass windows, padded dashboard/visors/steering wheels, seat belts, head restraints, adjustable and collapsible steering wheels. outside remote-control rear-view mirrors, directional signals, backup lights,power steering and brakes, , anti-locking brakes, protective air bags, and the list goes on and on. I am certain that there are at least a few features that gun manufacturers could implement to promote safety and reduce homicides and suicides. There could be reduced registration fees for such weapons if these types of features ere implemented, which might give such manufacturers an edge over their competition's.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>What About Variations in Laws from State to State?</u></i></b> Because the recommendations described here could be implemented differently within the various states, there is no way any given state could be expected to enforce the gun laws of another state. Therefore, it would be incumbent upon the gun owner, bearer, or user to be knowledgeable of and conform to the laws of any other state he or she may visit.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span> <br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>Where Do We Go from Here?</u></i></b> <span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">First of all, I hope you agree with at least some of my suggestions and recommendations. However, whether you agree with any of them or not, I hope you will communicate your personal views on the subject to your members of Congress. We cannot rely on Congress to arrive at a proper solution on their own, because too many of them have too much fat in the fire. Without strong feedback and pressure from their constituencies, they will have a tendency to vote for their personal political interests and those of their party, as determined largely by their financial backers, but not necessarily in the best interests of the country and its people.</span></span></span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;"><i>Just Remember This</i></span></u></span> ... <span style="font-weight: normal;">If we don't have some sort of gun control, we are going to have all sorts of guns out of control. </span></span></span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></h2>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-45452595342086059542012-03-18T16:24:00.000-07:002012-03-18T16:45:06.746-07:00What Is the Occupy Movement Up To?<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154411/what_has_occupy_been_up_to_6_great_actions_you_can%27t_miss_this_spring/?page=2">Six Great Actions You Can't Miss This Spring</a></b> </span></u></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Here is what I got from this article, as well as my reaction and personal opinion on each.<br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<div align="justify">
<b>1. Fight BAC! Occupy Takes on Bank of America</b></div>
<blockquote>
The
cause here is great, but I am never sure what tactics are to be used or what meaningful results, if any, might
be achieved. The article said that the day of protest was to be March
15, but it apparently was pretty much a non-event. I heard only about a
demonstration against B of A in St. Louis, where more than a dozen
people were arrested, but these took place after the B of A protest at
an assembly in a public park. Again, a good cause, but no tangible,
positive results. Not a "great action" in my opinion.</blockquote>
<b>2. May Day General Strike: A Day Without the 99 Percent</b><br />
<blockquote>
The
idea is catchy, but I am very pessimistic regarding its possible
results and its overall impact. Asking the 99%, who are the downtrodden
(whom the Occupy movement claims to represent) to lose a day's pay in
bad economic times is not going to be all that well received by the
99%. If they were to get even 10% of the 99% to comply (which I am sure
they won't), that would mean 89% were unwilling (or unable) to go along
with the strike. We'll just have to wait and see how that goes.</blockquote>
<b>3. The Student Movement</b><br />
<blockquote>
The
article acknowledges that this is a distinctly separate movement from
the Occupy movement itself. The students' actions have been taken on
their own (although Occupy members have frequently participated in
solidarity with the students).. This items references a link to the <a href="http://www.occupystudentdebtcampaign.org/" target="_blank">Occupy Student Debt Campaign</a>
site to sign a petition, and makes a nebulous reference to "look out
for actions on April 25, the day that student debt is going to surpass
$1 trillion." </blockquote>
<b>4. Occupy Our Homes</b><br />
<blockquote>
This
item references past actions: eviction defenses,occupying foreclosed
homes, and shutting down foreclosure auctions." It provides a link to a
<a href="http://occupyourhomes.org/" target="_blank">site</a> that describes some of these recent actions, foremost of which was an action that referenced another group called <a href="http://www.foreclosurefighters.com/" target="_blank">ForeclosureFighters</a>.
Another item described a home of a deceased woman in Atlanta that is
occupied by "members of the Atlanta community," but there was no mention
of the Occupy movement itself. The Occupy Our Homes site also provided
the following: "Find out more about what Occupy Our Homes has planned <a href="http://occupyourhomes.org/" target="_blank">here</a>" but this link was right back to the page where it is posted.</blockquote>
<b>5. Re-Occupations: Citywide Assembly and Pop-Up Occupations</b><br />
<blockquote>
The
only specific plan mentioned here is for an April 14 Citywide Assembly
at some yet-to-be-identified location in New York. Other than that,
there was a general reference to "lots of pop-up
occupations around New York City." These events are described as being
fun and giving Occupy a chance
to do outreach as well as meeting together in a park for an afternoon.
I don't see this as a "great action."</blockquote>
<br />
<b>6. </b>____________________<br />
<blockquote>
Ummm... There doesn't seem to be a number six. </blockquote>
All
in all, this still sounds to me like a movement without much movement
and one that is tremendously short on accomplishments, other than
raising people's awareness on critical issues. I they want to be a
viable force for reform, they are going to have to do something beyond
what they are doing and planning to do.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-58396545853992924962012-03-11T12:55:00.001-07:002013-07-23T14:32:21.874-07:00Why America is No Longer a Democratic Republic<br />
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Media-Circus-Obsession-Ob-by-David-Model-120310-264.html"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why
America is No Longer a Democratic Republic</span></a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Based on
an editorial by <a href="http://www.opednews.com/author/author23346.html">David
Model</a>, posted at <a href="http://www.opednews.com/author/author23346.html">OpEdNews</a></b></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Cited here are quotations from
David Model, a college professor, author, and public speaker.. They
are excerpts from his recent editorial titled <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Media-Circus-Obsession-Ob-by-David-Model-120310-264.html">Media
Circus Obsession: Obfuscating the Real Deficiencies of U.S.
Democracy</a>, In addition to the statements below, Mr. Model
presents what he sees as thirteen defects in our government that keep
America from being a democracy.Aside from his list of thirteen defects, these are the comments I see as being of greatest interest to Americans who dread the erosion of democracy in America.</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">When commenting on the impact of
elections on democratic ideals, it is necessary to look beneath the
symptoms and identify the real problems.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">Barnum and Bailey would turn
green with envy at the circus masquerading as an electoral campaign
currently in the United States.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">Electioneering spectacles are
both artificial and superficial but are really just a symptom of the
underlying infringements of democratic ideals.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
”<span style="font-size: small;">United States, Britain and
Canada are the only three democracies that have not implemented some
variation of proportional representation but have clung to the
First-Past-The-Post system, a majoritarian system, in which only a
plurality is needed in each voting district to determine the
outcome.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">.”.. it (is) virtually impossible
for smaller parties to gain any ground in the elected chambers of
government. ”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">.”..the Electoral College ...
enhances the possibility of the winner having fewer popular votes
than the loser.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
”<span style="font-size: small;">American election campaigns are
incapable of informing the public about the real stances of
candidates on all the issues and revealing the true character and
integrity of the candidates.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
”<span style="font-size: small;">In many European countries paid
advertising has been banned due to the overriding manipulative nature
of a thirty second ad designed by public relations and advertising
experts who are only interested in selling a product rather than
informing the public.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
”<span style="font-size: small;">Many democracies have also
banned donations by any groups such as corporations and unions …”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">... the ideal method for funding
elections would be based on a fair formula by which the government
would either provide all the money or a balanced combination of
government funding and individual donations with strict limits.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">In the U.S., there is a two
party system in which both parties are beholden to corporate donors
…”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">In 2011, a total of $3.3 billion
was spent on lobbying by 12,633 lobbyists translating into $6,168,000
spent on each member of the House and Senate on average and 23.6
lobbyists per each member of both Houses.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In 2012, many pundits are
predicting a total expenditure of $5 billion for all campaigns, the
major source of which are wealthy benefactors or corporations. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">Lobbying virtually destroys
political equality in the United States thereby undermining the
principle of "by the people, for the people" and "dedicated
to the principle that all men are created equal.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">It is impossible to govern with
only the public interest in mind when candidates are beholden to the
people who funded their victory.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">As for ordinary citizens, they
may be able to meet with their member of Congress or Senate but the
extent of their influence is often minimal.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">The bailout during the financial
crises ignored those who suffered the most, namely those who lost
their jobs, the poor and those who lost their homes.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">Leadership in Congress has been
accorded too much power which can be used to serve ideological ends
rather than the public interest.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">In the United States, Supreme
Court appointments are tainted by ideological considerations.
The Citizens United and the Florida Recount cases demonstrate the
role of ideology in the Court's judgments.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">.”.. the criminalization of
dissent and militarization of the police have resulted in a
multiplicity of violations of civil and legal rights not to mention
the First Amendment.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin: 0.08in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">Corporate ownership and
advertising and the symbiotic relation between big corporations and
the government have reduced the media to stenographers of power.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.26in; margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">I hope the items quoted here will
prompt you to read Mr. Model's entire editorial on the subject. And,
of course, you will have to read his full statement to review the
thirteen defects he sees in our government today.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-19874869351657797222012-02-25T17:08:00.000-08:002012-02-25T21:13:01.553-08:00Super PACs -- New Arena for Corruption?<br />
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
Everybody who follows the elections already knows about Super PACs
and how they came about in the aftermath of the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">Citizens
United ruling</a> by the Supreme Court. They know that these special
PACs are now allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money from
super-rich donors and corporations.</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
However, very little attention has been paid to just how those
millions of dollars are actually being spent. Are the funds used
wisely, and only for the campaigns for which they were intended? Do
they go to pay extremely high salaries and consulting fees? Do they
pay for unnecessary boondoggles and whims of the person running the
Super PAC? Who can know for sure, because there are no controls, no
oversight, and no restrictions on how those funds are used. The
field is wide open for behind-the-scenes graft and corruption within
these super PACs.</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
<a href="http://billmoyers.com/2012/02/24/something-old-something-new-something-wrong/">Dale
Emmons</a>, who is the president of the American Association of
Political Consultants has pointed out, “People who are raising the
money are paying themselves with these funds.” And he adds, “I
don’t think that’s appropriate,"
</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
In one Super PAC, <a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/813948/why_super_pacs_are_even_more_of_a_scam_than_you_might_have_thought/">Becky
Burkett</a>, the president of Winning Our Future (a group backing
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/arts-culture/newt-gingrich-PEHST000779.topic">Newt
Gingrich</a>), was paid more than $200,000 in January for “executive
management and fund raising services.” <a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/813948/why_super_pacs_are_even_more_of_a_scam_than_you_might_have_thought/">Gregg
Phillips</a>, the Super PAC's managing director, was also paid
$90,000. When asked about these payments, the group's senior adviser
<a href="http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/10/super_pac_winning_our_future_and_newt_look_to_grassroots_for_new_revenues_.html">Rick
Tyler</a> said the payments included compensation for work performed
in November and December (even though the Super PAC wasn't even
launched until mid-December). He also said that their salaries were
determined by the super PAC's "<a href="http://prospect.org/blog/vox-pop">senior
leadership</a>." And the senior leadership consists of: <a href="http://billmoyers.com/2012/02/24/something-old-something-new-something-wrong/">Rick
Tyler, Becky Burkett, and Gregg Phillip</a>s. Go figure.</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
Paul S. Ryan, an attorney with the watchdog group called <a href="http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/">The
Campaign Legal Center</a>, says that there are no restrictions on how
super PACs spend ;their money. “They can buy themselves yachts and
sail off into the sunset without spending a penny on campaign ads,”
He goes on to say, “There is no guarantee that the money is going
to be used in a way that the donor intends that money to be used.”</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
I performed some analysis of the expenditures of the Red, White, and
Blue Super PAC that supports Rick Santorum. I am beginning to think
that “Super PAC” might stand for “Super Politicians And
Crooks.” In examining the figures provided by <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?strID=C00503417&cycle=2012">The
Center for Responsive Politics</a>, of the $2.7 million that the Red,
White and Blue Fund spent from 2/16/12 to 2/24/12, a total of 41.9%
went to a company by the name of <a href="http://globalintermediate.com/contact.html">Global
Intermediate</a> for “direct voter mailings,” while 58.1% went to
television production and advertising.</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
What's so interesting about this? Well, the Super PAC is owned by
the a former Santorum aide, Nick Ryan, and guess what! He also owns
Global Intermediate, LLC. This company didn't incorporate until
mid-December, and then did so as a Delaware Corporation which shields
the identity of the corporate owners or principals.. A look at the
Global Intermediate <a href="http://globalintermediate.com/contact.html">web
site</a>, which was registered less than two weeks ago, shows the
site to be very basic and lackluster. It provides almost no
information about the company or absolute nothing about any of its
management or employees. It doesn't even include a contact list or
e-mail address. The phone number provided (<a href="http://numberscanner.com/202-505-4564">202-505-4564</a>),
when checked with a reverse directory, appears to be a cell phone.
The address given (<a href="http://g.co/maps/ff44u" target="_blank">2100
M St NW, Washington, DC 20037</a>) is that of a <a href="http://washingtondc.citysearch.com/profile/map/2170389/washington_dc/the_ups_store.html#profileTab-photos">UPS
storefront</a> that offers mailbox rentals, and some types of
business services.</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
In examining the figures provided by <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?strID=C00503417&cycle=2012">The
Center for Responsive Politics</a>, of the $2.7 million that the Red
White and Blue Fund spent from 2/16/12 to 2/24/12, a total of 41.9%
went to Ryan's company, Global Intermediate for “direct voter
mailings,” while 58.1% went to television production and
advertising.</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
When asked, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/22/nation/la-na-superpac-spending-20120223">Stuart
Roy</a>, spokesperson for the Super PAC, said he had "<a href="http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/5335/nice-work-if-you-can-get-it">no
idea</a>" how to contact Global Intermediate. However, the
following day, he acknowledged in an e-mail that <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/22/nation/la-na-superpac-spending-20120223">it
is a company run by Ryan.</a></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.12in;">
So, there you have it: Super PACs with super pay, super flexibility
in how they spend their funds, and no accountability whatsoever for
how they are spent. Who could ask for anything more? Some think
that this kind of situation will be <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/22/nation/la-na-superpac-spending-20120223">self-correcting</a>,
but I have serious doubts.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Related Subjects:</b></u><br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="2" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="17"><br />
</td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/big-problems-with-our-two-party-system.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Big Problems with Our Two-Party System</span></a></td><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/elections-heart-of-democracy.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Elections :Heart of Democracy or Height of Hypocrisy?</span></a></td><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-presidential-debates-duopoly-reigns.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In Presidential Debates, Duopoly Reigns Supreme</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></td><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/our-presidential-debates-are-fraud.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Presidential Debates: Fraud or Farce?</span></a></td><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-for-third-party-candidates.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Problems For Third-Party Candidates</span></a><br />
</td><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/congress-ignores-will-of-people.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Congress Ignores the Will of the People</span></a></td><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/credo-for-change.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">We Must Drive Big Money Out of Politics!</span></a><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-4826762870735663572012-02-19T19:19:00.000-08:002012-02-23T18:36:54.934-08:00Occupy Movement -- Rooted in Anarchy?<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="ctl00_cphBody_trAuthor"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="ctl00_cphBody_AuthorDataCtrl1_trAuthorPr1"></a> <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-large;"><b></b></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><b><u><b>The
Birth of the 99% Movement</b></u></b></span></div>
<div dir="LTR" id="Section3" style="font-family: inherit;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">On
February 15, 2009, David DeGraw. editor of <a href="http://www.ampedstatus.com/">AmpedStatus</a>,
posted the first part of a seven-part series titled </span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">"The
Economic Elite vs. The People of the United States of America."
Soon after the reports were released, AmpedStatus launched <a href="http://turnstylenews.com/2011/11/09/whos-behind-it-tracing-the-roots-of-the-99-percent-movement/">the
99% Movement</a>.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Even
Good Movements Don't Always Get Support</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">While
the concept of the 99% may have come from David DeGraw, attempts to
grow it into a widespread movement were not very successful. He
merged his 99% Movement with a subset of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29">Anonymous</a>
to form a new group called A99 which, in turn, planned a course of
action titled “Operation Empire State Rebellion” They <a href="http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_63187.shtml">called
for people to occupy Liberty Park</a>, but only 14 people showed up,
and only four of them were willing to camp out over night. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Enter
Adbusters, Along with Anarchism</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">No
further occupations were attempted until Adbusters came into the
picture <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html" target="_blank">calling
for an occupation on September 17th</a>. Adbusters was able to rally
their network of <a href="http://turnstylenews.com/2011/11/09/whos-behind-it-tracing-the-roots-of-the-99-percent-movement/">94,739
subscribers</a>, providing a level of exposure that neither
A</span><span style="font-size: small;">mpedStatus
nor A99 could come close to matching. And thus it was that K</span><span style="font-size: small;">alle
Lasn and Micah White burst onto the scene. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Lasn,
identified by <a href="http://digitaltexan.net/author/admin/">Mitch
Traynor</a> in a <a href="http://digitaltexan.net/2011/politics/the-occupy-wall-street-criminal-rap-sheet/article9315/#.T0GUunlW2So">The
Digital Texan</a> as <a href="http://digitaltexan.net/2011/politics/the-occupy-wall-street-criminal-rap-sheet/article9315/#.T0GUunlW2So">a
self-described anarchist</a>, was one of the founders of a Canadian magazine called AdBusters as well as the owner
of the <a href="http://digitaltexan.net/2011/politics/the-occupy-wall-street-criminal-rap-sheet/article9315/#.T0GUunlW2So">Internet
domain name</a> for the Occupy Wall Street movement
(<a href="http://www.occupywallstreet.com/">www.occupywallstreet.com</a>). </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://micahmwhite.com/">Micah
White</a> was another of the forces behind the founding of the Occupy
Wall Street movement. A graphic on his <a href="http://micahmwhite.com/">home
page</a> indicates an identification with the Black Bloc provocateurs
who have themselves “occupied” many of the Occupy movement
demonstrations, creating chaos and destruction. As a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=2">"mystical
anarchist"</a> and the <a href="http://micahmwhite.com/">senior
editor</a> of <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/magazine">Adbusters</a>,
he and Lasn established the name and date of the occupation of Wall
Street. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>More
Plans; More Anarchists</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">O</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
August 2, 2011, a group of roughly fifty </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Adbusters</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
supporters, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=2">mostly
anarchists</a>, met in New York to plan the September 17 occupation
of Wall Street. They agreed to a “horizontal” rather than
“hierarchical” organization and general assemblies in which
participants make decisions by consensus, which they refer to as
direct democracy. Both of these are based upon anarchist principles</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">They
were joined by former Yale professor of Anthropology David Graeber,
another <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber">anarchist</a>,
who who helped facilitate the first meeting, The protesters planning
the September occupation met again, on August 9th, to finalize plans
for the September 17 occupation along with several other unidentified
anarchists who were referenced in an account of that meeting. Graeber
was among the facilitators, and one of the more prominent participants was <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=3">Marisa
Holmes, a twenty-five-year-old anarchist</a> and filmmaker. </span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<u><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><b>Some Success at Last, but at a Price!</b></span></span></u></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">We all know what happened next. OWS was a major success in getting the message out and has spawned hundreds of similar movements across the country and the world. As Marshall McLuhan once said, "The message is the medium and the medium is the message." So far, that seems to be true of all the Occupy movements. They are long on medium (demonstrations) and on their message (inequality and corruption), but they are short on results.</span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>How
does the Occupy movement embody anarchist principles?</b></u><b>
</b></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">There are four major tenets
described below that clearly identify anarchism. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>1)
</b><b><u><b>The
refusal to recognize the legitimacy of existing authoritarian
institutions.</b></u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The
Occupy movement prefers not to produce a list of demands that must be
met to meet their needs. There are two reasons for that. One is
that, if they were to be true to their anarchist roots, they couldn't provide a complete list without revealing their
long-term goals to do away with government as we know it and the political
institutions that control it. The other reason is because issuing
demands would mean recognizing the legitimacy of those of whom the
demands are made.Anarchists generally do not recognize existing governmental authorities.</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">(It
is worth noting that anarchists distinguish between protests and
direct action: Protest is looked upon as an appeal to the authorities
to change things. Anarchists do not protest, because they refuse to
recognize the validity of authority. They believe instead in direct
action, whether it's a matter of occupying or appropriating property
(or “liberating” it as they call it), shutting down businesses,
disrupting public meetings or government functions, all in defiance
of law and order, and in direct opposition to the conventions of our
society.)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><b>2)
</b><u><b>The refusal to accept the legitimacy of the existing legal order.</b></u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The
second principle, obviously, flows from the first. From the very
beginning, organizers in New York knowingly and deliberately ignored
local ordinances that stipulated that any gathering of more than twelve
people in a public park is illegal without prior written police
permission. These organizers apparently operated on a self-assumed
belief that such laws should not exist and, therefore, could be
ignored. It was important to them that they begin with what they
considered to be a personal moral order, and not a legal one.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-weight: normal;"><b>3) </b>
</span></b><b><u><b>The
refusal to create an internal hierarchy, but preferring instead to
create a form </b></u><b></b><u><b><br /></b></u><b> </b><u><b>of consensus-based direct democracy.</b></u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">From
the very beginning, organizers made the decision to operate
not only by direct democracy, without leaders, but by consensus, in keeping with anarchist principles. The
first decision ensured that there would be no formal leadership
structure that could be co-opted or coerced; the second, that no
majority could bend a minority to its will, but that all crucial
decisions had to be made by general consent. American anarchists have
long considered the consensus process to be crucial.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">4)
</span><b></b></b><u><b><b><span style="font-size: small;">The imposition of
a totally new and different society.</span></b></b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Virtually
all encampments became spaces of experiment with creating the
institutions of a new society - not only democratic General
Assemblies but kitchens, libraries, clinics, media centers and a host
of other institutions, all operating on anarchist principles of
mutual aid and self-organization, without any institutions to
enforce rules, regulations, and laws.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Anarchy
is more than just a grass roots movement.</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Most
Americans share a deep dislike for their government and its political
system. However, few are likely to want to resort to actual anarchism.
Indeed, few even know what "anarchism" truly means. It's
not clear how many, if they did learn, would choose anarchy over a
democratic republic. Anarchism is much more than simple
grassroots democracy: It ultimately aims to eliminate all forms of
government and authority (including public services such as streets
and highways, sewers, police and fire protection, and our system of
justice), except for what is approved in general assemblies.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Why
did this movement catch on?</b></u><u> </u></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The
people of America bought the movement's basic message – that the
American political order is absolutely and irredeemably corrupt, that
both parties have been bought by the wealthiest one percent
of the population, and that if we are to live in any sort of
genuinely democratic society, we're going to have to make some
radical changes to our political and governmental order .</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Unity
can be found in misery and outrage.</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">But
overwhelming numbers of Americans do feel that something is
terribly wrong with their country, that its key institutions are
controlled by an arrogant elite, and that radical change of some kind
is long since overdue. They're right. It's hard to imagine a
political system so systemically corrupt – one where bribery, on
every level, has not only been made legal, but soliciting and
dispensing bribes has become the full-time occupation of every
American politician. The outrage is appropriate. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Civil
disobedience and disruption precipitate violence.</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">As
the history of past movements all make clear, nothing terrifies
those running our country more than the dangers of anarchy. The
immediate response to organized civil disobedience is a panicked
combination of concessions and brutality. How else can one explain
the mobilization of thousands of riot police, the tear gas, the
beanbags and rubber bullets, and the mass arrests of the disruptors?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Things
Are Not Always What They Appear to Be</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">When
the Occupy Movement first started, its organizers publicly stressed
that their protests would be peaceful, and that they were open to
people of all political persuasions and at all social and economic
levels. They also said that their actions would target Wall Street
and the wealthiest 1% of our country and the disparity between them
and the bottom 99%. However, they didn't publicly state that their
origins were rooted in anarchy. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Many
members who were initially drawn to the movement's message of
inequity and inequality in our social order became disaffected as
they saw the movement drift increasing toward anarchy and
lawlessness, especially when Black Bloc insurrectionists wreaked
havoc on small businesses and provoked the police and other
authorities into taking extreme action against them. This was not
the type of movement they expected.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Meanwhile, Back at the Movement ...</b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Many others have succumbed to the spell of the movement and have
fallen prey to the Groupthink phenomenon that binds the remaining
members together. They seem to think that they – and only they –
are right, and anybody who disagrees with them is wrong. They
determine for themselves what is right or wrong without regard for
the wishes and needs of the 99% they purport to represent. Few
protesters know the real roots of this movement, one into which they
have poured so much of their time and effort. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Yes, the Occupy movement still
has its followers. And, yes, the concepts of anarchy feed it at its
every turn. For better or for worse, anarchy is the very heart of
the movement, but it is also a well-kept secret from the average
citizen who supports the movement. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <u><b>The Final Word</b></u></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">“</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Perhaps
before setting out to tear down government, we should establish
rules. The potency of the anarchist argument is the freedom to
dismantle a government that fails to protect citizens’ rights. The
challenge facing anarchists is to know what to do with the broken
pieces of the system they smashed.”</span></i></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
– </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/author/mmarstaller/">Mimi
Marstaller</a></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
<a href="http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/anarchy-still-needs-rules/">Anarchy
still needs rules</a></span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><b>Related messages</b>::</span></span></div>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="2" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="17"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="1" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="17" width="126"><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-direction-for-occupy-movement.html">New Direction for the Occupy Movement</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-it-time-for-ows-reality-check.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Time for an OWS Reality Check</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-time-for-occupy-to-move-on.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Time for Occupy Movement to Move On</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/cuomos-new-york-tax-package-victory-for.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">NY Tax Plan: Occupy Wall Street Victory?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-occupy-movement-running-amok.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Is the Occupy Movement Running Amok?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/02/occupy-oakland-no-longer-exists.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">"Occupy Oakland" No Longer Exists!</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_279308117"><b><br /></b></a></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/02/oakland-demonstrators-open-letter.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">An Oakland Demonstrator's Open Letter</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br /></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-62981397483272878102012-02-01T11:28:00.000-08:002012-03-11T13:01:49.029-07:00Restoring Democracy: Introduction/Index<div align="CENTER" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Welcome to the Restoring
Democracy Blog</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">As you can see from the summary at the top of this page
and from my profile to the right, I am very concerned about our
country and its future. We were founded as a democratic republic.
Unfortunately, year by year, I see that democracy slipping away from
us and, with it, our government of the people, by the people, and for
the people.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We cannot rely on our government to cure itself, because, in
fact, our government is a major part of the problem. It is up to the people to
take action to rescue and restore the democracy that is rightly ours
under the Constitution. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The entries contained herein address various facets
of the problems which beset and threaten our country. There are also some recommended
steps that we as private citizens can take to effect this change and
return the government to the people. I hope that these posts will provide
some information, provoke some thought, produce some ideas,
and promote some action toward reclaiming and restoring our
democracy.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Listed below are titles of the posts contained in this
blog. Please review them and click on any that might be of interest
to you. Also, please feel free to leave any comments, suggestions, or viewpoints of your
own. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />Here for your convenience is a list by topic of the posts in this blog with links to each:</span>
<br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="2" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="14"></col><col width="760"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17" width="14"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP" width="760"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Democracy </b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/awaken-sleeping-eagle.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Awaken the Sleeping Eagle!</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/first-lets-define-democracy.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Democracy, and What It Means to Us</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/democracy-from-definition-to.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Democracy: From Definition to the Constitution</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/plutocracy-displaces-democracy-in-us.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Are We a Democratic Republic or a Plutocracy?</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="2" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="17"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_279307984"><br /></a></td><td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/threats-to-our-democracy.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Major Threats to Our Democratic System</span></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/great-economic-divide.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The Great Economic Divide</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-there-is-no-true-democracy-in.html">Why There Is No True Democracy in America </a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Economy</b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-pursuit-of-profits-kills-innovation.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">How the Pursuit of Profits Kills Innovation and the Economy</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/open-letter-to-one-percenters.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">An Open Letter to the One Percenters</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/duopoly-and-wealth-ties-that-bind.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Duopoly and Wealth: The Ties that Bind</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Government </b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/working-partner-of-plutocrats-our.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Political Duopoly: Working Partner of the Plutocracy</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-plutocracy-to-plutonomy-from-bad_22.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Plutocracy to Plutonomy: From Bad to Worse!</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/political-fundraising.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Campaign Funding's Impact On Democracy</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Congress</b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/money-talks-and-politicians-respond.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Money Talks, And Politicians Listen!</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/us-congress-bought-and-paid-for-by-big.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">U.S. Congress: Bought And Paid For</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/definitions.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Lobbying And Its Impact On Democracy</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/two-lobbyists-teach-for-one-day-and.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Lobbyists Teach One Day and Get Huge Pension</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-is-congress-so-dysfunctional.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Why Is Our Congress So Dysfunctional?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-congress-has-occupied-wall-street.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">How Congress Has Occupied Wall Street.</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Politics</b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/big-problems-with-our-two-party-system.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Big Problems with Our Two-Party System</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/elections-heart-of-democracy.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Elections :Heart of Democracy or Height of Hypocrisy?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Gerrymandering for Fun and Profit! (in development)</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-presidential-debates-duopoly-reigns.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In Presidential Debates, Duopoly Reigns Supreme</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/our-presidential-debates-are-fraud.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Presidential Debates: Fraud or Farce?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-for-third-party-candidates.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Problems For Third-Party Candidates</span></a><br />
<a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/02/super-pacs-new-arena-for-corruption.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Super PACs -- New Arena for Corruption?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/congress-ignores-will-of-people.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Congress Ignores the Will of the People</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/credo-for-change.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">We Must Drive Big Money Out of Politics!</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Solutions?</b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/saving-american-democracy-amendment.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The "Saving American Democracy" Amendment</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-not-to-get-money-out-of-politics.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">How Not to Get Money Out of Politics</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/eight-step-approach-to-awaken-america.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The Quickest Way to Solve Our Problems?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_279308070"><b><br /></b></a></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/restoring-democracy-one-vote-at-time.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Restoring Democracy - One Vote at a Time</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_279308074"><b><br /></b></a></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/restoring-american-dream-part-i.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Restoring the American Dream - Part I</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/restoring-american-dream-part-ii.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Restoring the American Dream - Part II</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/restoring-american-dream-part-iii.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Restoring the American Dream – Part III</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="1" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="126"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17" width="126"><b>Occupy Movement</b></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> <a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-direction-for-occupy-movement.html">New Direction for the Occupy Movement</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-it-time-for-ows-reality-check.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Time for an OWS Reality Check</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-time-for-occupy-to-move-on.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Time for Occupy Movement to Move On</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/cuomos-new-york-tax-package-victory-for.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">NY Tax Plan: Occupy Wall Street Victory?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-occupy-movement-running-amok.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Is the Occupy Movement Running Amok?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/02/occupy-oakland-no-longer-exists.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">"Occupy Oakland" No Longer Exists!</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_279308117"><b><br /></b></a></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/02/oakland-demonstrators-open-letter.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">An Oakland Demonstrator's Open Letter</span></a><br />
<a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/02/occupy-movements-roots-in-anarchy.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Occupy Movement: Rooted in Anarchy?</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br /></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
Thank you for visiting the site. I hope you will return again, as
new subjects are posted with a fair degree of regularity.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
Regards,</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
Jim Burgardt</div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-64880787013970829962012-02-01T10:07:00.000-08:002012-02-04T09:21:25.815-08:00"Occupy Oakland" No Longer Exists!<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Occupy Oakland movement, as we used to know it, no longer exists. Oh,
the name still exists, but it no longer has the same
intent, purpose, ideals, or spirit that it once had. The movement has been compromised, co-opted, and taken hostage by outside
interests who prefer insurrection over results, and destructive
violence over peaceful engagement. They now refer to themselves
increasingly as the Oakland Commune, rather than Occupy Oakland.</span></span></h2>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
activities of the last weekend in January reinforce what I have
believed for several months now – that the Occupy Oakland movement
has itself been occupied – by a dark and menacing force of
insurrectionists known as <a href="https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQL-NWnfCmxTHGAO0aorDwh9Hnb0oUf42kuMLhMlTzN5L6Ka8Ct">Black
Bloc Anarchists</a>.</span></span></h2>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">It
started with some of the earlier demonstrations last Fall, when small
groups of protesters, <a href="http://www.uaff.us/g20blackbloc.jpg">dressed
in black</a> (commonly wearing <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=oge&sa=X&rls=%7Bmoz:distributionID%7D:%7Bmoz:locale%7D:%7Bmoz:official%7D&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=rMcT3I_JqaeYdM:&imgrefurl=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ff%3D/c/a/2003/01/27/BA192742.DTL&docid=cHWkxABc-p0vcM&imgurl=http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2003/01/27/mn_destroy1.jpg&w=464&h=276&ei=zgMnT5m9JoqIiAKlzazfBw&zoom=1">ski
masks</a> or <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=oge&sa=X&rls=%7Bmoz:distributionID%7D:%7Bmoz:locale%7D:%7Bmoz:official%7D&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=QJ8cl3x-IQcAcM:&imgrefurl=http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Occupy-Oakland-pictures-massive-damage%3Fpage%3D5&docid=J-Lm9zKpKrDYDM&imgurl=http://imgupld.lunaticoutpost.com/graphic/images/2011/November/03/CC41_4EB32CDB.jpg&w=400&h=322&ei=zgMnT5m9JoqIiAKlzazfBw&zoom=1">“hoodies”
with scarves over their faces</a> to hide their identities) smashed
and vandalized both <a href="https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAYdLjgeNird2KwQBEuzPZ8JzKiGfXsCnARSgn5S7hzVL2HFb9VA">private</a>
and <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=CUK&sa=X&rls=%7Bmoz:distributionID%7D:%7Bmoz:locale%7D:%7Bmoz:official%7D&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=pUIjA9zyHG1H3M:&imgrefurl=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/29/BA4T1N07OE.DTL&docid=DWCQTx9VQsnBsM&imgurl=http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/01/29/ba-occupy29_SFC0106420195_part6.jpg&w=370&h=274&ei=YXcpT5eAD4_PiAKG9aimCg&zoom=1">public</a>
property, <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=oge&sa=X&rls=%7Bmoz:distributionID%7D:%7Bmoz:locale%7D:%7Bmoz:official%7D&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=cwwdTSY0LhBnZM:&imgrefurl=http://info-wars.org/2010/06/&docid=AZRlKe7FH7qUwM&imgurl=http://info-wars.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/black-bloc-breaks-window-500-x-308.jpg&w=468&h=288&ei=zgMnT5m9JoqIiAKlzazfBw&zoom=1">broke
windows</a>, spray painted <a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFASze3OjONAGZyLAexm5b083UuQ81jkg8Oia8I1-Dtb0VVfw2">walls</a>,
<a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=oge&sa=X&rls=%7Bmoz:distributionID%7D:%7Bmoz:locale%7D:%7Bmoz:official%7D&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=Kxd0f7bntzNfvM:&imgrefurl=http://blogs.kqed.org/bayareabites/2011/11/03/oakland-general-strike-and-the-whole-foods-incident/&docid=xG-cymEknSCloM&imgurl=http://blogs.kqed.org/bayareabites/files/2011/11/wholefoods3.jpg&w=560&h=376&ei=zgMnT5m9JoqIiAKlzazfBw&zoom=1">windows</a>,
and <a href="https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFhxpME2XvSoROgZRKyKCDL0howYMvc5ZXYDOFcqUnxX29LvGe4g">cars</a>;
<a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=oge&sa=X&rls=%7Bmoz:distributionID%7D:%7Bmoz:locale%7D:%7Bmoz:official%7D&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=w2TmyHXprBn9XM:&imgrefurl=http://guerrillanews.wordpress.com/tag/2010-olympics/&docid=3YHpv1ilZVAIyM&imgurl=http://guerrillanews.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/dsc_0737.jpg%253Fw%253D450&w=450&h=299&ei=zgMnT5m9JoqIiAKlzazfBw&zoom=1">overturned
trash and recycling bins</a>; and <a href="https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUc_RtykL6syPJCBfPDA2F8rv9RO_z6ElfcBsxoHRmgE9jETSILA">set
fires</a>, including <a href="https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRuXNiB9IT4fjJrw5V6QclSGfLZdqk3rOQpjAq0vzmyeo8xIvOUQ">burning
the American flag</a>. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">If
past experience is an indicator, we will probably find that most of
these anarchists are not Occupy Oakland members or supporters and
</span><span style="font-size: small;">not from Oakland at
all, but came to town to create an insurrection from what had been
planned to be a peaceful demonstration. These people had their own
cause and agenda, and saw the Occupy Oakland demonstration as an
opportunity to stir things up a bit. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Time
Magazine addressed this in its report: “<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2098891,00.html">Occupy
Oakland Embraces Nonviolence, but Debates 'Black Bloc' Tactics.</a>”
</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Current
TV headlined this last demonstration as:”<a href="http://current.com/community/93641057_ows-anarchist-violence-in-oakland-the-0-99-strike-again.htm">OWS
Anarchist Violence in Oakland; The 0.99% Strike Again!</a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">A couple of
months ago, a document was being passed out to explain the
involvement of anarchists in the Occupy Oakland movement. This
included a sketch of Frank Ogawa Plaza (which the movement refers to as Oscar Grant Plaza) that depicted the various
activities that took place there. You will notice that everything was
centered around “<a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/11/10/18698644.php">Anarchist
Principles In Action.</a>” If the diagram does not display on your
computer, you can view it at this <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/11/10/18698644.php">link</a>.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="color: navy; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/11/10/anarchist_principles_in_occupy.jpg"><span style="color: navy;"><img align="BOTTOM" border="1" height="493" name="graphics1" src="http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/11/10/640_anarchist_principles_in_occupy.jpg" width="567" /></span></a></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="border: medium none; font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The
takeover now seems to be all but complete. The Occupy Oakland
movement will probably never be the same again.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="border: medium none; font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The links below are to a few blog items that also deal with "Occupy Oakland" and its recent activities, in which </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-us-oakland-proteststre80s005-20120128,0,1523297.story">more
than 400 protesters were arrested</a>.</span></h2>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://bicoastalbitchin.com/2012/01/29/this-is-not-the-occupy-oakland-movement/"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><b>This Is Not the Occupy Oakland Movement</b></span></a></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></b></h2>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/30/occupy-oakland-s-violent-turn-proves-the-movement-has-lost-its-way.html">When the Inclusive Occupy Oakland Movement Became the White Anarchist Movement</a></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></b></h2>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
<b><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/30/occupy-oakland-s-violent-turn-proves-the-movement-has-lost-its-way.html"><span style="font-size: small;">Occupy Oakland’s Violent Turn Proves the Movement Has Lost Its Way</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></b></h2>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.2in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">My best advice to those who want to resolve their
differences with our government in an effective manner is
to disengage from the present violence-leaning, radical elements,
re-engage with peaceful supporters who are more representative of the 99%, propose solutions, and act toward getting those solutions enacted. </span></h2>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Develop a structure and an
agenda with specific actions to be taken, not just a list of charges
and complaints. Establish a formal dialog between the group and
the different levels of government. Select intelligent and
articulate individuals to represent the interests of the movement to
legislators, and get these people on radio and television talk shows
to present the movement's agenda, goals, objectives, and proposed
solutions. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Let the country know that there are real people behind
this movement and that they are not just a mob of unemployable
miscreants looking for a handout from the rich. Let them know that
they have thought through the issues very carefully and that they
want to be part of the solution and not just an addition to the
problems we already have. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">And, most of all, register to vote, if you aren't already registered, and take out your anger in the upcoming elections. Vote against the very people who caused this mess and who are not doing anything of substance to correct it. We need to repopulate our federal and state governments with representation that foster the same ideals as the original Occupy movement and who will do something to rectify the situation.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Then we might see some meaningful and
constructive dialogue and get some positive and lasting results.</span></div>
<div class="connect_comment_share_preview">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="uiGrid"><tbody>
<tr><td class="vTop"><br /></td><td class="vTop"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<b><b><b><label class="connect_comment_widget_post_button uiButton uiButtonConfirm" for="utw5rh_2"></label></b></b></b></div>
<b><b>
<b>
</b></b></b>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-3904386376795989772012-02-01T09:56:00.000-08:002012-02-01T09:56:24.751-08:00An Oakland Demonstrator's Open Letter<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="font-family: inherit;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">This comes from one of the insurrectionists who
participated in last Saturday's failed attempt to expropriate the
Kaiser Convention Center in Oakland (which they had planned to take
over and use as the group's headquarters) The letter can be found at
the <a href="http://www.anarchistnews.org/node/21546#comments">Anarchist
News</a> site. It is interesting, if not disturbing, to see what
goes on in the mind of one of the demonstrators as he recounts the
events of that day with joy and elation. I am able to publish the
entire account, because the site specifically says that the material
is “anti-copyrighted.” Here is what this person had to say:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.41in 0.06in 0.43in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">Let us start by apologizing; that our words may be
incoherent, our thoughts scattered and our tone overly emotional.
Forgive us, because the ringing in our ear continues to interrupt our
thinking, because our eyes are bleary and we're weighed upon by the
anxiety and trauma of our injuries and the imprisonment of the ones
we love. As most of you are well-aware: after a full day and night of
street battles in Oakland, we were defeated in our efforts to occupy
a large building for the purposes of establishing an social center.
We're writing, in part, to correct the inaccuracies and
mystifications spewed by the scum Media. But more so as to convey the
intensity and the urgency of the situation in Oakland to comrades
abroad. To an extent, this is an impossible task. Video footage and
mere words must inevitably fail at conveying the ineffable collective
experiences of the past twenty-four hours. But as always, here goes. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Yesterday was one of the most intense days of our lives.
We say this without hyperbole or bravado. The terror in the streets
of Miami or St. Paul, the power in the streets of Pittsburgh or
Oakland's autumn; yesterday's affect met or superseded each of these.
The events of yesterday confronted us as a series of intensely
beautiful and yet terrible moments.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Beautiful words are delivered at Oscar Grant Plaza,
urging us to cultivate our hatred for capitalism. Hundreds leave the
plaza and quickly become thousands. The police attempt to seize the
sound truck, but it is rescued by the swarming crowd. We turn towards
our destination and are blocked. We turn another way and are blocked
once more. We flood through the Laney campus and emerge to find that
we've been headed off again. We make the next logical move and
somehow the police don't anticipate it. We're closer to the building,
now surrounded by fences and armed swine. We tear at the fences,
downing them in some spots. The police begin their first barrage of
gas and smoke. The initial fright passes. Calmly, we approach from
another angle. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The pigs set their line on Oak. To our left, the museum;
to our right, an apartment complex. Shields and reinforced barricades
to the front; we push forwards. They launch flash bangs and bean bags
and gas. We respond with rocks and flares and bottles. The shields
move forward. Another volley from the swine. The shields deflect most
of the projectiles. We crouch, wait, then push forward all together.
They come at us again and again. We hurl their sh*t, our sh*t, and
whatever we can find back at them. Some of us are hit by rubber
bullets, others are burned by flashbang grenades. We see cops fall
under the weight of perfectly-arced stones For what feels like an
eternity, we exchange throws and shield one another. Nothing has felt
like this before. Lovely souls in the apartment building hand
pitchers of waters from their windows to cleanse our eyes. We'll take
a moment here to express our gratitude for the unprecedented bravery
and finesse with which the shield-carrying strangers carried out
their task. We retreat to the plaza, carrying and being carried by
one another. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We re-group, scheme, and a thousand deep, set out an
hour later. Failing to get into our second option, we march onwards
towards a third. The police spring their trap: attempting to kettle
us in the park alongside the 19th and Broadway lot that we'd
previously occupied. Terror sets in; they've reinforced each of their
lines. They start gassing again. More projectiles, our push is
repelled. The intelligence of the crowd advances quickly. Tendrils of
the crowd go after the fences. In an inversion of the moment where we
first occupied this lot, the fences are downed to provide an escape
route. We won't try to explain the joy of a thousand wild-ones
running full speed across the lot, downing the second line of fencing
and spilling out into the freedom of the street. More of the cat and
mouse. In front of the YMCA, they spring another kettle. This time
they're deeper and we have no flimsy fencing to push through. Their
lines are deep. A few dozen act quickly to climb a nearby gate,
jumping dangerously to the hard pavement below. Past the gate, the
cluster of escapees find a row of several unguarded OPD vans: you can
imagine what happened next. A complicit YMCA employee throws opens
the door. Countless escape into the building and out the exits. The
police become aware of both escape routes and begin attacking and
trampling those who try but fail to get out. Those remaining in the
kettle are further brutalized and resign to their arrest. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">A few hundred keep going. Vengeance time. People break
into city hall. Everything that can be trashed is trashed. Files
thrown everywhere, computers get it too, windows smashed out. The
american flags are brought outside and ceremoniously set to fire. A
march to the jail, lots of graffiti, a news van gets wrecked, jail
gates damaged. The pigs respond with fury. Wantonly beating, pushing,
shooting whomever crosses their path. Many who escaped earlier
kettles are had by snatch squads. Downtown reveals itself to be a
f***ing war zone. Those who are still flee to empty houses and loving
arms." </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">---</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"A war-machine must intrinsically be also a machine of
care. As we write, hundreds of our comrades remain behind bars.
Countless others are wounded and traumatized. We've spent the last
night literally stitching one another together and assuring each
other that things will be okay. We still can't find a lot of people
in the system, rumors abound, some have been released, others held on
serious charges and have bail set. This care-machine is as much of
what we name the Oakland Commune as the encampment or the street
fighting. We still can't count the comrades we can't find on all our
hands combined. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We move through the sunny morning and the illusion of
social peace has descended back upon Oakland. And yet everywhere is
the evidence of what transpired. City workers struggle to fix their
pathetic fences. Boards are affixed to the windows of city hall and
to nearby banks (some to hide damage, others simply to hide behind).
Power washer try to clear away the charred remains of the stupid
flag. One literally cannot look anywhere along broadway without
seeing graffiti defaming the police or hyping our teams (anarchy,
nortes, the commune, even juggalos). A discerning eye can still find
the remnants of teargas canisters and flashbang residue. At the
coffee shops and delis, friends and acquaintances find one another
and share updates about who has been hurt and who has been had. Our
wounds already begin to heal into what will eventually be scars or
ridiculous disfigurements. We hope our lovers will forgive such
ugliness, or can come to look at them as little instances of unique
beauty. As our adrenaline fades and we each find moments of solitude,
we are each hit by the gravity of the situation. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Having failed to take a building, our search continues.
We continue to find the perfect combination of trust, planning,
intensity and action that can make our struggle into a permanent
presence. The commune has and will continue to slip out of time,
interrupting the deadliness and horror of the day to day function of
society. Threads of the commune continue uninterrupted as the
relationships and affinity build over the past months. An
insurrectionary process is the one that emboldens these relationships
and multiplies the frequency with which the commune emerges to
interrupt the empty forward-thrust of capitalist history. To push
this process forward, our task is to continue the ceaseless
experimentation and imagination which could illuminate different
strategies and pathways beyond the current limits of the struggle.
Sometimes to forget, sometimes to remember." </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">---</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"We'll conclude with a plea to our friends throughout the
country and across borders. You must absolutely not view the events
here as a sequence that is separate from your own life. Between the
beautiful and spectacular moments in the Bay, you'll discover the
same alienation and exploitation that characterizes your own
situation. Please do not consume the images from the Bay as you would
the images of overseas rioting or as a netflix subscription. Our hell
is yours, and so too is our struggle. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">And so please... if you love us as we believe you do,
prove it. We wish so desperately that you were with us in body, but
we know most of you cannot be. Spread the commune to your own
locales. Ten cities have already announced their intentions to hold
solidarity demonstrations tonight. Join them, call for your own. If
you aren't plugged into enough of a social force to do so, then find
your own ways of demonstrating. With your friends or even alone:
smash, attack, expropriate, blockade occupy. Do anything in your
power to spread the prevalence and the perversity of our
interruption. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">for a prolonged conflict; for a permanent presence; for
the commune;</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">some friends in Oakland.” </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">I don't know how this all strikes you, but it doesn't
sit at all well with me. When the Occupy movement first started, I
had high hopes for it. Now, I think my hopes have been dashed.</span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-46426605709058407902012-01-25T16:19:00.000-08:002012-02-04T10:33:00.372-08:00Restoring the American Dream – Part III<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>THE SOLUTION</b></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="CENTER" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>What
Happens When Corporations Run Our Government?</b></u></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342451_0"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342451_1"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342451_2"></a>
<span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>What
you get is plunder. And I have to say this, the American people have
to understand that there is a huge difference between free market
capitalism, which is a good thing because it makes us more efficient,
more prosperous, and more democratic, and the kind of corporate-crony
capitalism which has been embraced by this White House.” – </b></i></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.aliciabaylaurel.com/robertfkennedyjr2" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Robert
Kennedy, Jr.</b></i></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>(5/2/2004)</b></i></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
[Note: The reference to the White House in this quotation was
directed at the Bush administration at the time, but it even exists
to a certain extent in the present administration as well.]</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>The
Bottom Line. We must get private contributions* out of politics.</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Private contributions in politics are among the main reasons why
Congress puts corporations and special interest groups first and the
people last, even though it is the people that they are supposed to
serve first and foremost. That is the root of all the bad
legislation and lack of control that allowed our capitalist system to
run amok and bring this country into financial ruin. That is the
cause of the huge gap in income and wealth between the top 1% and the
bottom 99%. That is the cause of outsourcing virtually all of our
major manufacturing processes, most our job losses and most of our
home foreclosures. So, getting private contributions out of politics
is the major imperative. And it means, not just getting the private
contributions out of the elections, but also out of all politics.
As long as people and corporations are allowed to contribute to
politicians, those politicians will forever be tainted with acting in
the interests of those contributors and not our country or the
private citizens they are elected to represent.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">*In
this context, examples of “private contributions” include the
transfer or promise of transfer of any item of value to or from any
member of Congress, OR his or her staff or family (within the third
degree of kindred). Items of value include, by way of example and
not limitation: monetary considerations, property, gifts, trips,
airfare, accommodations, meals, speaking engagements, stipends, fund
raising events, political advertising, surveys, petitions,
get-out-the-vote campaigns, employment, personal favors, or services,
including the drafting of proposed legislation for a Congress member
or his or her staff, or the providing of information not in the
public domain that might be financially beneficial or politically
advantageous to either the Congress member or a lobbyist, consultant,or adviser. However, this provision would
permit volunteer campaign workers who perform routine office tasks in
direct support of a candidate for office for prescribed periods of time during an exploratory period, the primary campaign, and the general election. For management, consulting, and advisory campaign
positions, the Congress member must pay the prevailing rate for such
positions on the open market.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>How
Might This Be Done?</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
There are several ways to accomplish this. Unfortunately, given the
present state of our country and our democracy, some of them may not
be feasible.</span></span></div>
<ol style="font-family: inherit;">
<li><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
could be done on a voluntary pledge basis, but this would have no
force of law behind it to motivate individuals to adhere to it. It
is still worthy of consideration as an interim measure pending a
more acceptable, permanent solution.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
could be done through adding text to the oath of office that every
office holder must take, stating that they have not accepted and
will not accept anything of value while in elective or appointed
office or while under consideration for any such office. This might
be somewhat cumbersome, but it might still be worth pursuing.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
might be possible to accomplish this through Congressional
legislation. However, with the symbiotic relationship that exists
between personal contributors and politicians, and the lack of
cooperation between the two parties presently in power, it is highly
unlikely that Congress would ever pass such legislation. Any such
legislation would have to be based upon federally provided campaign
funds that would be equal for every candidate for federal office, would be based upon the population
and geography of each state district, and would require more
extensive use of the Internet and public service television coverage
to conduct campaigns.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
could be done with a Constitutional amendment, but such amendments
must originate either in Congress or in the state legislatures
throughout the country. Because virtually all elected
representatives accept contributions of some sort, this, too, may be
virtually impossible.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Or,
it could be done with a combination of these items, starting first
with the pledge for incumbents, the oath of office for newly-elected
or newly-appointed individuals, then legislation and Constitutional amendments. </span></span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
However, there is one particular, rather radical step that we can take right now, starting with the primary elections for Congress this year. Here's how it would work:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Hit
Them Where It Hurts!</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
We all know that Senators and Representatives freely ignore those
people and those issues that they choose to ignore. They are blind to
major problems that are right before their eyes and turn a deaf ear
to anything that they don't want to hear. But there is one way to
really get their attention. The one thing they cherish most highly
are their seats in Congress. They value these seats so highly that
they are willing to compromise their principles to secure them and
their moral values to keep them. Their greatest fear is the loss of
their positions in Congress, and the power, status, and prestige that
go with them. If they fail to deliver democracy back to the American
people, the people they are supposed to represent, then we will act
against them – in full electoral force</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342451_3"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342451_4"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Here
Is Our Challenge to Congress.</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Congress must show good faith to the American people and make
whatever changes are necessary to get items of value totally out of
politics forever. Except for a Constitutional amendment, they must
make any legislation or other action effective October 1, 2012.
Candidates for office will be allowed to expend any monies they have
raised up to that date, but mus not accept any more contributions or
other assistance of value. They must also include a plank in their
respective party's platform to submit a Constitutional amendment to
the American people not later than June 30, 2012. If they fail to
accomplish this by the aforementioned dates, the people of American
will be strongly encouraged to reclaim their democracy through other
means, some of which are described described below. </span></span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Use
Your Clout and Vote Them Out!</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
If Congress fails to pass the legislation required to accomplish the
items described above, and if you care anything about our democracy
and its future, then we need to hit them where it will do us and the
country the most good – at the ballot box. The power elite may have
a huge advantage over us when it comes to money, but we have a huge
advantage over them when it come to voting. Because of that, we can
and will reclaim our democracy if we follow the rules below.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<u><b><br /></b>
</u></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Suggestion
#1</b></u>. </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Spread
the word</span></span></span>
to everybody, especially the 20% who are unregistered, the 23% who
vote rarely, and the 22% who vote intermittently. Their votes will
not only count in this and future elections more than ever before,
but they will be especially critical now, because they will be
voting on reclaiming our democracy from the power elite who have
taken it from us.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><u>Suggestion #2.</u></b> Flood every member of Congress with e-mails, letter, tweets,
phone calls, and petitions, calling for immediate legislative reform
to get private contributions out of politics entirely (not just a
reversal of the Citizens United ruling), including legislation to
remove any congress member who violates these reforms, once
implemented. Inform them that, if they do not actively support
these reforms and put the will and interests of the people ahead of
their personal interests, those of their party, and those of their
financial backers, that they will be voted out of office one by one,
even if it takes twelve years to do so.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Suggestion #3</b></u>. When it come to voting in the PRIMARY* elections, let's put our
vote where our convictions lie, and vote for anybody BUT a Democrat
or a Republican. Vote for the best of the third-party or independent
candidates – just NOT a Republican or a Democrat. (The ONLY
exception to this should be a candidate who has pledged to actively
support efforts to restore our democracy by getting private
contributions out of politics entirely.). Do not consider this to be
a “wasted vote.” It is a vote FOR DEMOCRACY, and that can never
be a wasted vote. And it is a vote AGAINST CORRUPT POLITICS. A vote
for a major party's candidate is a vote in favor of the status quo
and against democracy.. In that sense, a vote for a major party
candida can be seen as a wasted vote, because it just helps maintain
the present corrupt system of politics and government. <br /><br />*In
the GENERAL election, it is still preferable to voter for anybody
but a Democrat or a Republican. However, there maybe some
situations where the voter might feel they must vote for “the
lesser of two evils” to avoid the possibility of electing
considered to be </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u>extremely</u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
undesirable.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Suggestion #4</b></u>. If there are only Democrats or Republicans on your ballots, do
not vote for either of them, UNLESS they too have demonstrated good
faith in returning democracy to the American people and have pledged
to take an active role in getting private contributions out of
politics entirely..</span></span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><u>Suggestion #5</u></b>. Help get the vote out, especially those who either don't
vote or only occasionally vote.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<ol style="font-family: inherit;">
<li><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Form
neighborhood groups, if you don't already have some. Meet on a
regular basis to discuss this issue earnestly, honestly, and openly.
Explain why it is important to you, to them, and to our country. Ask
each member to bring at least one new member to each subsequent
meeting, to broaden your base. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Explore
and possibly join efforts with other like-minded civic organizations
in your area to further broaden your base, increase your power, and
lend more public credibility to your efforts.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Form
a telephone bank and place calls to people in the neighborhood.
(You can get listed phone number of your neighbors at </span></span><a href="http://neighbors.whitepages.com/">WhitePages
Neighbors</a> by keying in your own address.)</li>
<li><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Offer
to help people get registered and volunteer to drive them to the
polls on election day if necessary. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Keep
a log of all people called and any commitments made, to ensure that
they are met.</span></span></li>
<li>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Follow
up with calls on election day to determine last-minute questions or
problems.</span></span></li>
</ol>
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Suggestion #6.</b></u> Continue this for each election until Congress enacts the
necessary legislation to restore to American citizens the democratic
republic that our founding fathers established for us</span></span><i style="font-family: inherit;"><b>In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the
right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst
thing you can do is nothing. – </b></i><span style="color: navy; font-family: inherit;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/theodore_roosevelt_1_a001.htm"><i><b>Theodore
Roosevelt</b></i></a></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Will
This Work?</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Will this process alter the outcome of the coming Federal elections?
That all depends on how well received this process is, how dedicated
people are to regaining their democracy, and how much they want to
root out corruption in our government. Our point here is to
demonstrate how dissatisfied the American people are with the state
of affairs in our country and with the complicit involvement of our
government in depriving us of our democracy. If our elected officials
refuse to act in good faith, then we will have to respond at the
polls and, if we get the strength we know is out there, we will gain
a few responsive seats in Congress and serve notice to any of the
survivors that they may be next.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Onward
and Upward.</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
There are many, many more critical issues that need to be addressed
and resolved. However, this proposal addresses the one serious
problem that is at the root of almost all of other major problems
that we presently face. Please continue to work on those as well. And
keep this strategy in mind if the Congress fails to act on them as
well as this particular issue. </span></span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342451_5"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>"I
believe democracy to be of all forms of government the most natural,
and the most consonant with individual liberty. In it no one
transfers his natural rights so absolutely that he has no further
voice in affairs, he only hands it over to the majority of a society,
whereof he is a unit. Thus all men remain, as they were in the state
of nature, equals". – </b></i></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.iefd.org/articles/democracy_quotes.php" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Spinoza</b></i></span></a></u></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.04in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="yiv952876988yui-ie-cursor"></a>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-79879090279621601232012-01-25T14:33:00.000-08:002012-01-28T21:45:43.438-08:00Restoring the American Dream - Part II<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>MOVE
ASIDE, DEMOCRACY – PLUTOCRACY HAS TAKEN OVER</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.44in; margin-right: 0.44in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_0"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_1"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>"Behind
the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government
owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the
people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy
alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first
task of the statesmanship of the day." – </b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.iefd.org/articles/democracy_quotes.php" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Theodore
Roosevelt</b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
April 19, 1906</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_2"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>What's
Happened to Our Democracy?</b></u></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Here we are, touted as one of the greatest democracies the world has
ever had, but, in this day and age, our democracy is a sham, a farce,
perhaps even a lie. Oh, we have many of the trappings of a democracy.
We preach democracy to the rest of the world. We praise those
countries in the Middle East who are struggling for democracy
themselves. But, irony of ironies, we don't really have a democracy
ourselves. We don't even have a democratic republic.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.54in; margin-right: 0.54in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_3"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">The
American polity is infected with a serious imbalance of power between
elites and masses, a power which is the principal threat to our
democracy. – </span></b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.wellstone.org/about-us/wellstone-legacy/speeches/paul-wellstone-quotes" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">Paul
Wellstone </span></b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_4"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_5"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>So,
What Do We Have?</b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The democracy which we all learned to treasure so much exists no more
in this country. In its place, we now have not just an oligarchy –
</span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://oligarchy.askdefine.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">a
political system governed by a few people</span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"> – but
a plutocracy. – </span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://plutocracy.askdefine.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">a
political system governed by the wealthy people</span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">.
They have become our masters, and we have become their serfs. Another
irony: Our forefathers came to this continent to escape the
aristocracies of Europe, only to leave the door open for their
descendants to be ruled by a form of government that closely resembles
aristocracy.. Average citizens may not have iron shackles around
their ankles, but they are shackled financially and serve at the
mercy of the plutocrats.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.7in; margin-right: 0.7in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_6"></a>
<span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>I
hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
–</b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/37038/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Thomas
Jefferson</b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>
(1812)</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.7in; margin-right: 0.7in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.7in; margin-right: 0.7in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">“</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>We're
not a democracy. It's a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to
the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we're a
plutocracy: a government by the wealthy." </b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">-----</span></b></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://whatshappening1.wordpress.com/category/ramsey-clark/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">Ramsey
Clark</span></b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">,
former U.S. Attorney General (2007)</span></b></i></span></span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.7in; margin-right: 0.7in; margin-top: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_7"></a>
<span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Plutocracy
and democracy don’t mix. Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves
democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder. </b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">–</span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-moyers-plutocracy-and-democracy.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Bill
Moyers</b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span></h3>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.02in; margin-right: 0.41in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_9"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_10"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>How
Did This Happen?</b></u></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Over
the past thirty years or so, Congress and big money interests have
developed a mutually-beneficial, symbiotic relationship. Big Business
has been increasingly generous to elected officials. And elected
officials have been exceedingly generous to them in return. Favorable
tax breaks, incentives, fewer regulations and lax enforcement have
resulted in massive amounts of under-controlled and under-regulated
capitalism and free enterprise, which has been allowed to run out of
control. As a result</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
the top 1% of our population now takes in </span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">25%
of the income</span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">
in this country, holds </span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">40%
of the total wealth</span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
and virtually control the lives of 99% of the population.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.84in; margin-right: 0.84in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_11"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>"We
can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." –
</b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.iefd.org/articles/democracy_quotes.php" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Louis
D. Brandeis</b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
Supreme Court Justice (1916-1939)</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.8in; margin-right: 0.8in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_13"></a>
<span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>The
owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties
are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States.
Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a
corporate community that dominates the federal government in
Washington. – </b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://faculty.ccc.edu/aberger/Who%20Rules%20America.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>William
Domhoff</b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
Who Rules America: Power and Politics in the Year 2000</b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">,</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>p.
1</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.8in; margin-right: 0.8in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Are
the American People to Blame?</b></u></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">
It would be overly-simplistic to say that we, the people, are to
blame – that we were asleep at the switch, or that we were too
apathetic to get involved. Yes, it would indeed be overly-simplistic,
and it would be wrong. That is like saying that the victim of a crime
is also the to blame for the crime. And there is no way the
American people would have visited this kind of mess on themselves.
They were lied to and misled. They had information withheld from them
and spun to cover up the truth. In the end, they, were bilked out of
their life savings and their homes by financial experts. Even more
than that, they were bilked out of their democracy.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_14"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b><br />Who,
Then, Is to Blame?</b></u></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Here
is a list from </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://factcheck.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">FactCheck.org</span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of entities who are blamed for creating our present financial crisis.
(Source:</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/</span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; border: none; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.76in; margin-right: 0.76in; orphans: 2; padding: 0in; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Wall
Street firms</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Federal Reserve</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/20/business/prexy.php" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
Bush administration</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></u></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-rejects-blame-for-financial-crisis-2008-09-25.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
Clinton administration</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051009sp.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Congress</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
former </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040223/" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">overly-optimistic
home buyers</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">over-zealous
real estate agents</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">opportunnistic
ortgage brokers</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></u></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/mark_to_market.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">obscure
accounting rules</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
and a</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
naive belief by all parties</span></span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">involved
that home prices would keep rising indefinitely.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_15"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_16"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
can be seen, there is more than enough blame to go around for
everyone. Do they all share the blame? Perhaps, but in differing
proportions and for different reasons. However, David Stockman, who
was Ronald Reagan's D</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">irector
of the Office of Management and Budget and closely tied to the
development of </span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">Reaganomics</span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
but now he points to </span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york;"><span style="font-size: small;">massive
failures by Republicans</span></span></a></u></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_17"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899" name="lw_1319342712_18"></a>
<span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>The
new (GOP) catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for
decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and
deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological
vestments of the prosperous classes. This approach has not simply
made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the
serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have
crippled our economy.” – </b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>David
Stockman</b></i></span></span></a></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
Wall Street Journal, (7/21/10), </b></i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Because
of overlapping complexities and responsibilities, we will probably
never know where the major blame should rest. In many cases, there
was greed. In other cases, there was deliberate deceit. In still
other cases, there was misplaced trust in governmental,
quasi-governmental, and financial institutions. What should concern
us now is getting ourselves out of this mess that our “leaders”have
brought upon us. And, since we and our children, and our children's
children will be paying for this mess for decades to come, we need to
have a strong voice in any solution.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/restoring-american-dream-part-iii.html">Continue to Part III </a><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/restoring-american-dream-part-ii.html"></a></span></span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-70957122554867569132012-01-25T13:38:00.000-08:002013-07-23T16:06:01.234-07:00Restoring the American Dream - Part I<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0.14in; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b> CITIZENS
IN ACTION CAN DEFEAT GOVERNMENT INACTION</b></span></span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
</span></span>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.92in; margin-right: 0.92in;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;">“</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>I
remain just one thing, and one thing only – and that is a clown. It
places me on a far higher plane than any politician.” – </b></i></span></span></span><a href="http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A2754191"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Charlie
Chaplin</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.92in; margin-right: 0.92in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>The
“Occupy” Movement.</b></u> This movement has been active since
September 17, 2011 . It was formed to bring attention to the fact
that there are strong financial ties and mutual support between Wall
Street and Congress that have contributed to some gross inequality,
inequity, and iniquity. They drew attention to their cause by
establishing encampments in cities across the country. Support comes
not just from New York, but from all over the country and all over
the globe. These are the cries of the weak, the needy, the
down-trodden, the unfortunate, the disenfranchised, and of people of
principle who unite with them in their struggle, not just for
equality, but for survival.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
“<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>If you ask the government
for permission to protest it, you deserve to be told no." –
</b></i></span></span><a href="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_quotes_archive.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Jim
Lesczynski</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
Manhattan Libertarian Party Chair</b></i></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>The
Grievances.</b></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">
There are massive numbers of problems that beset our country and it
people today, The </span></span><a href="http://nycga/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Declaration
of the Occupation of New York City</u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">by the Occupy Wall Street
demonstrators outlined 21 major grievances, and even then noted that
the list was not all-inclusive. With a little more thought, that list
could easily have numbered 100 or more.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.56in; margin-right: 0.56in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>"Our tradition is one of
protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of
the past, while we silence the rebels of the present." – </b></i></span></span><a href="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_quotes_archive.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Henry
Steele Commager</b></u></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u>
</u></span></span></span></a>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.56in; margin-right: 0.56in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>"During the last bubble
(from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the
Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national
income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's
shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the
market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy …
“My G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy. " – </b></i></span></span><a href="http://wallstreetwarzone.com/gop-destroyed-u-s-economy-before-the-elections-next-mcconnell-boehner-will-push-america-into-a-double-dip-recession-to-defeat-obama-for-new-reaganomics-president/"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>David
Stockman</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
(former Director of Ronald Reagan's Office of Management and Budget)</b></i></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>The
Over-Riding Point.</b></u> The most important sentence in this Occupy
Wall Street document sums up all the frustration and suffering that
the people of our country have been forced to endure. It states,</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;">“</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>No
true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by
economic interests. We come to you at a time when corporations, which
place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression
over equality, run our governments.” – </b></i></span></span></span><a href="http://nycga/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Declaration
of the Occupation of New York City</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Four key words in this statement
are “corporations ... run our governments.” This is especially
true at the federal and state levels. The bottom line is: All of the
other issues spring from this one root problem.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>There are a thousand hacking
at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. – </b></i></span></span><a href="http://www.rootstrikers.org/"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Henry
David Thoreau</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
Walden, 1854 </b></i></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Big
Money Drives Politics.</b></u> <span style="font-weight: normal;">Politicians
need huge amounts of money to campaign for public office.
Corporations (and the financial elite) need strong support in our
legislative branches to ensure that their wealth will be protected
and will continue to grow. The money brokers thereby become power
brokers, helping to finance the campaigns of candidates who will
protect the power elite's interests in return. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.8in; margin-right: 0.8in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>"A
relatively small number of deep-pocketed donors exerted an outsize
influence on Tuesday's [election] results," – </b></i></span></span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04money.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Michael
Luo/Griff Palmer</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
New York Times (11/3/10). "The big corporations are going to try
to get what they paid for. – </b></i></span></span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04money.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Richard
Trumka</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
AFL-CIO President, New York Times (11/3/10).</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.8in; margin-right: 0.8in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Money
can't buy you love . . .</b></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">but
it can frequently buy you an elective office. Typically, in federal
elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about </span></span></span><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">90
percent</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
the time. Most of this money comes from wealthy donors who expect
something in return. And, whenever politicians accept huge monetary
donations from deep-pocket sources, they are likely to feel indebted
to do something for them in return, to ensure that those same sources
will contribute again in future elections. Because money plays an
undue role in how politicians are elected, it also plays an undue
role in how they act. Even Glenn Beck agrees.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.9in; margin-right: 0.9in;">
“<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Wall Street owns our
government. Our government and these gigantic corporations have
merged.” – </b></i></span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20rich.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Glenn
Beck</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
New York Times (9/19/09) </b></i></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.9in; margin-right: 0.9in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>How
Many Millionaires Does It Take to Take Control of the Politics of a
Whole State?</b></u> <span style="font-weight: normal;">In the October
10, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer reported how one
conservative millionaire did exactly that. In North Carolina, a swing
state that is expected to be important in the 2012 elections, one
millionaire bankrolled the campaigns of 22 conservative candidates
for the state legislature. Eighteen of them were successful, giving
majority status to the Republicans in both houses of the state
legislature for the first time since 1870.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.9in; margin-right: 0.9in;">
“<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>For an individual to have
so much power is frightening. The government of North Carolina is for
sale.” – </b></i></span></span><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Chris
Heagarty</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
Democratic candidate for the North Carolina legislature in the New
York Times (10/10/11)</b></i></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="border: none; line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.9in; margin-right: 0.9in; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Money
talks, and politicians listen . . .</b></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
they respond in kind to the benefit of corporations and the wealthy..
Was it just a coincidence that </span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">three
of the five top corporate donors </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
the candidacy of </span></span></span><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Barack
Obama</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
</span></span></span><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00006424"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">John
McCain</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
2008 (</span></span></span><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Goldman
Sachs</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000103"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">JPMorgan
Chase & Co</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
and </span></span></span><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000071"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Citigroup
Inc</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.)
were all among the top ten </span></span></span><a href="http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">financial
firms to be bailed out</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
to the tune of </span></span></span><a href="http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">$80
billion</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">?
That amount of money could have provided from $25,000 to $50,000 for
1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners to escape foreclosure and
potential family ruin. The big three donors were seen as being “too
big to fail,” but 1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners,
individually or collectively, were apparently not “too big to
fail.” Let's face it. Big money owns Big Business, and Big Business
owns the government (at both the federal and state levels). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.58in; margin-right: 0.58in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>If you are a major
contributor and go to Washington, you might have a chance to have
lunch with a senator or representative; or if you are a really big
contributor, you might even end up at the White House. The closest
chance you or I have at having lunch at the White House is buying a
hot dog from the vendor on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the
building. – </b></i></span></span><a href="http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/InfluGov.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Marc
A Triebwasser</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>,
</b></i></span></span><a href="http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/InfluGov.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>How
Corporations Influence the Government</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>(1998 )</b></i></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.05in; text-indent: -0.01in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.05in; text-indent: -0.01in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.05in; text-indent: -0.01in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Congress Members' Loyalties</b></u>
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Once elected, members of Congress
frequently ignore the people whom they are elected to represent.
Their first priority is to get reelected. Their second allegiance is
to their political parties. Third comes their financial backers. Then
come their supporters – the people who voted for them, followed as
a distant fifth the people in their district who did not vote for
them,. And, dead last, come the needs and welfare of our country and
all of its people. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>A
politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the
next generation.</b></i></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">
— </span></span><a href="http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_politician_thinks_of_the_next_election-a/295806.html"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>James
Freeman Clarke</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>(1810–1888),
Unitarian clergyman, writer </b></i></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
when Congress members say that they are going to consult with their
constituencies, it isn't necessarily the people in their
representational district to whom they are referring. They are just
as likely to be conferring with their financial backers and
lobbyists. When they do meet with their true constituency, it is just
as likely that they will be trying to convince them on his or her
stand of an issue rather than soliciting their input on the subject.
A Congress member's constituency should be all of the people in the
country. Next, it is supposed to be </span></span></span><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constituency"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
voters or residents in a district represented by an elective officer</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
it doesn't always turn out that way. Here is a more realistic way of
how many Congress members view their constituencies</span></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Wall
Street's Views of the OWS Protest.</b></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">With
regard to the Occupy Wall Street movement, one Wall Street money
manager recently expressed disappointment that their New York
Congress members had not “</span></span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html?pagewanted=all"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">come
out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their
campaigns</span></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.”
He stated, </span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">“</span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html?pagewanted=all"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>They
need to understand who their constituency is.</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">”
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">He is saying, in effect, “To
hell with the people; we are the ones they really represent.”
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of truth to that premise.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-right: 0.5in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>"We've
got government to the highest bidder. We've got auction block
democracy. It's not true that each voter counts for one and only one;
that's the way it's supposed to be in a democracy. Money determines
who gets to run for office, how people run for office, it determines
what people do while in office and the fact of the matter is the vast
majority of people are cut out of the loop." – </b></i></span></span></span><a href="http://www.wellstone.org/about-us/wellstone-legacy/speeches/phil-donahue-show"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><u><b>Senator
Paul Wellstone</b></u></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>(1992)</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-right: 0.5in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 0.22in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in; margin-right: 0.5in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/restoring-american-dream-part-ii.html">Continue
to Part II</a></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.2in;">
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-16937958403104019112012-01-17T20:16:00.000-08:002013-07-26T21:31:47.887-07:00Restoring Democracy - One Vote at a Time<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Our
country is in the midst of its biggest political, social, and
economic crisis since the Great Depression. This crisis was not
caused by the people of the country, but by a runaway Congress.
Congress has been bought by big money interests whom they dutifully
serve at the expense of "the 99%." Our two major parties
constitute a corrupt political duopoly that does the bidding of the
wealthy plutocracy, and together they are transforming our country
from a democratic republic into a fascist state. </span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Some
of our politicians are preaching reform, such as reversing the
Citizens United ruling, but this at best is just a token effort.
These proposals are piecemeal approaches and very much like tossing a
bone to a dog to keep him from biting. We cannot expect Congress to
solve our root problems on their own, because Congress </span><span style="font-size: small;"><u>is</u>
</span><span style="font-size: small;">the root problem. However, there a process we can
implement that should motivate them to act on our behalf.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The
one thing politicians fear most is the loss of their elected
positions. Threatening them with this is probably the best way for us
to get their attention and to let them know that we mean business. We
will need to demonstrate our undivided strength as a threat to their
retaining their positions. Then, if they don't act in our best
interests, we can continue the process until they are all voted out.<br /><br />So,
how do we regain our rightful control over the government and restore
power to the people? We stage a peaceful revolution -- a rebellion at
the ballot box. In the Congressional <u>primary</u> elections, we
need to vote against every Democrat or Republican incumbent, because
they are all beholden to their parties and to the financial elite who
contribute billions of dollars to their elections. But we must make
sure not to replace them with other members of the same party
machinery who will just continue their predecessors' practices. In
short, we must cast our votes for independent or third-party
candidates wherever possible and never for a candidate of the two
major political parties.<br /><br />There
are more than 310 million citizens in this great country. A little
more than 3 million belong to the top 1%, leaving 307 million in the
bottom 99%. As long as we have the “one person, one vote” rule,
we have the numbers; we have the strength; and we have the clout to
vote them out.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In
the last presidential election, there were 206 million citizens who
were eligible to vote, but only 131 million actually did, leaving 75
million who chose <u>not </u>to vote. If we can get just 20% of that
75 million to vote as recommended herein, we can send a very powerful
15 million vote message to our politicians – enough to sway even
the hardest of hearts..</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We
must communicate our plan to both voting and non-voting citizens
alike. In this election, more than any other in the past 30 years,
the American people are truly responsible for doing something that
can improve their lives for many years to come. If we can energize
and mobilize a sufficient number of citizens to vote against all
Democrats and all Republicans in the </span><span style="font-size: small;"><u>primary</u></span><span style="font-size: small;">
elections, we would certainly get the attention of these lawmakers
and send a very loud populist message that immediate drastic action
is needed if they want to stay in office.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In
the </span><span style="font-size: small;"><u>general</u></span><span style="font-size: small;"> elections,
we need to recognize that candidates from the two major parties are
still part of the problem. We should vote to reject all of the
Democrats and Republicans running for Congress this year. However,
there may be some rare situations when one candidate, regardless of
how bad he or she may be, might still be strongly preferable to any
available alternative. In such circumstances, the voter should feel
to vote his or her own conscience, as the lesser of two evils.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">This
process should also be applied at the state level (especially the
governor's position), because the states are often the breeding
grounds for future national politicians, and governors frequently
appoint replacement representatives whenever a mid-term vacancy
occurs.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.12in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In
both elections, we need to get our message across that we aren't
willing to settle for the status quo; we aren't going to settle for
less than our forefathers ordained; and we aren't going to accept
anything less than the American Dream. Either they return our
democracy to us or we will turn them out of office.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-33795466769458675532012-01-07T13:55:00.000-08:002012-02-13T13:31:31.271-08:00How Not to Get Money Out of Politics<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="color: #280099;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Getting Money Out of Politics</b></u></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
There has been considerable discussion surrounding the corrupting
influence of money in politics. Several sources have developed
proposed Constitutional amendments to minimize the detrimental effect of political
contributions and favors. You will find below a list of some proposed amendments excerpted from the <a href="http://unitedrepublic.org/amendments-guide/">Idiot’s
Guide to the Amendments</a>.. Some of these are already before
Congress. Others are drafts by individuals or groups, conveying what
they consider to be items that they feel should be included in any
formal amendment.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Nothing
Is Perfect.</b></u></span> Unfortunately, virtually all of these
proposals have major problems. Several of them limit their
amendments to the issue of corporate personhood and/or specifying
that money is not speech, and nothing else.. Others fail to address
these issues at all. Only a few of them go beyond these concepts to
address getting special interest money out of politics altogether,
and not just out of our elections. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Some are vague or
confusing in their terminology. Almost all of them rely on Congress
to implement the legislation for campaign finance reform, in spite of
the fact that it is the very members of Congress that are heavily
complicit in this abuse of power in our government. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Piecemeal
Approach Likely to Fail</b></u></span>. My personal feeling is that
most of these proposals reflect at best a piecemeal approach and only
a first step toward cleaning up the mess we have in Washington.
Almost everything of any true significance that we need to do will
require at least one Constitutional amendment. However, we cannot go
to the people piecemeal with these important items. We need to put
together a total reform package in only one or two amendments, while,
at the same time, keeping them simple and straightforward, so that
average citizens can read and understand them, and who will back
their passage by their federal and state legislators.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Each
title below is also a link to the text of that proposed amendment. I
don't expect you to read every one. However, if you should choose to
read only one, I suggest that it be Wolf PAC Amendments (<a href="http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&amp;action=display&amp;thread=83">#28</a>
and <a href="http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=29th&action=display&thread=4">#29</a>).
Taken together, they appear to me to be the most comprehensive
package, and they are very clear and easy to comprehend. Here are
brief descriptions of thirteen proposed efforts to cure the ills of
our present system.</span></span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">OCCUPIED
Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Democratic
Congressman Ted Deutch from Florida introduced this amendment in the
House. It is a companion bill to the <a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.J.Res..pdf">Saving
American Democracy Amendment</a> in the Senate. It only partly
addresses the Citizen's United ruling by stating essentially that
only non-profit corporations established for business purposes are
not people. It fails to address the issue of money as speech,
government financing of federal elections, or other reforms.</span></span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.J.Res..pdf"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Saving
American Democracy Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Independent
Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont introduced an amendment in the
Senate that is a companion bill to and essentially the same as the
<a href="http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf">OCCUPIED
Amendment</a> in the House. </span></span></span>
</div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://www.getmoneyout.com/"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Get
Money Out Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
amendment was proposed by the Get Money Out organization, which was
started by MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan. Get Money Out merged with the
United Republic group in late 2011. Its content is somewhat similar
to the <a href="http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf">OCCUPIED</a>
and <a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.J.Res..pdf">Saving
American Democracy</a> amendments above. However, it is the only
amendment that calls for election day to be a federal holiday.</span></span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-amendment-beta-v-9"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Lessig
Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
amendment was proposed by Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who also
founded the <a href="http://www.rootstrikers.org/">Rootstrikers</a>
organization. That group merged with the United Republic
organization in late 2011. It provides for government funding of
federal elections, a limit of $100 for “non-anonymized"
contributions, but does not address any limits for “ anonymized”
contributions. It would place limits on independent political
expenditures within 90 days of an election, It indirectly addresses
corporate personhood by specifying that non-natural persons do not
have inalienable rights under the First Amendment of the
Constitution. It does not address the “money is speech” issue.</span></span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Wolf
PAC Amendments (<a href="http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&amp;action=display&amp;thread=83">#28</a>
and <a href="http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=29th&action=display&thread=4">#29</a>)</span></span></span></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">These amendments
were proposed by Wolf PAC, a group started by progressive TV and
radio host Cenk Uygur. Because I think this is the best of the
amendments submitted to date, I am including their entire text below.
The sites also have descriptive explanations of each section at
their respective sites, if you want more information.</span></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&amp;action=display&amp;thread=83"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Amendment
XXVIII</b></span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.73in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.72in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Section
1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by
operation of law are not persons, and do not have the rights of
people.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.71in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.71in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Section
2. No entity not a person, and no people other than citizens, shall
contribute to any political purpose. All contributions to political
purpose shall be made public, with the name of the contributor and
amount and nature of the contribution, and the name of the recipient.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.73in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.72in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Section
3. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this
article by appropriate legislation. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=29th&action=display&thread=4"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Amendment
XXIX</b></span></span></a></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.71in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.71in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 1. Only U.S.
citizens shall be allowed to contribute to a candidate for public
office, or to contribute money to an organization engaged in
influencing the outcome of an election or legislation, or to
contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of said
candidates and elected officials, organization, or legislation.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.73in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.72in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 2. No
candidate for any elected office shall be permitted to receive more
than sixteen times the federal hourly minimum wage, in contributions
of any form, excluding volunteer hours, for any purpose, from any
singular citizen of the United States of America during the same
election cycle; all contributions must be fully disclosed in amount
and source.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.71in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.69in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 3. No
appointee or nominee to, or holder of, any office of any government
body shall accept gifts or compensation to their personal accounts
save their duly awarded salary from said government body; they may
receive campaign contributions in a separate campaign account subject
to disclosure.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.7in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.69in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 4. All
campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign
contributions. Candidates as private citizens may contribute to their
campaigns within the limits and restrictions of this amendment and
shall be permitted use of personal forms of transportation.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.72in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.72in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 5: All
campaign contributions, to candidates or to organizations engaged in
influencing the outcome of an election, must be raised from the
constituents of the elected office in question.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 6. The
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.</span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/71154073/A-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Reform-Campaign-Finance"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Udall
Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Democratic Senator
Tom Udall of New Mexico, along with eight other Democratic Senators
(Messrs. Bennet, Harkin, Durbin, Schumer, Merkley, Whitehouse,
Begich, and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced this amendment. It is so full
of holes that it is virtually a worthless sham. It doesn't address
the issue of corporate personhood or the use of money as speech. It
adds essentially nothing toward getting money out of politics, except
for what Congress might legislate, and we all know how effective
they have been in the past and will continue to be in the future..</span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://mcgovern.house.gov/uploads/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
People's Right's Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Congressman
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) introduced the amendment with the support of
<a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/">Free Speech for People</a>,
a non-profit group that aims to end corporate personhood. This
amendment would reverse the Citizen's United decision by the Supreme
Court, but nothing else. </span></span></span>
</div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://rapgenius.com/Russell-simmons-constitutional-amendment-for-the-public-financing-of-federal-elections-lyrics"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Simmons
Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hip-hop artist
Simmons announced his support for an amendment that would establish
public funding of federal political campaigns and would prohibit any
political contributions from any source. It gives Congress the
authority to design and enforce the public funding system. However,
it does not address the issue of corporate personhood issue or
concept that money is speech. It does, however, specifically
preclude candidates from using their own money for their campaigns.</span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.78:"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Edwards
Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Introduced by
Representative Donna Edwards (D-Md.), this feeble and useless
proposal has very little merit. It does not directly address
corporate personhood or the concept of money as speech. It refers to
'contributions,' but doesn't define them (financial, in kind,
volunteerism, etc.). Here is the entire content of her vague
amendment: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.74in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.75in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 1. Nothing
in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from
imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the
expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation,
limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but
not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a
candidate for public office.</span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">t: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 2. Nothing
contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom
of the press.</span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.72:"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Schrader
Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Democratic
Representative Kurt Schrader from Oregon introduced this amendment.
It doesn't directly address the corporate personhood issue and is
silent on the issue of money as speech. It also does not provide for
publicly financed campaigns. Other than those issues, I think this
is one of the better amendments.</span></span></div>
<h3 align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.8:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.8:"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Kaptur
Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Introduced by
Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), this is another feeble and
useless proposal that has very little merit. Here is the entire
content of her amendment:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.68in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.7in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 1. Congress
shall have power to set limits on the amount of contributions that
may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made
by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination
for election to, or for election to, Federal office.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.68in; margin-top: 0.06in; text-indent: -0.7in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 2. A State
shall have power to set limits on the amount of contributions that
may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made
by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination
for election to, or for election to, State or local office</span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">.</span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Section 2.Congress
shall have power to implement and enforce this article by
appropriate legislation..</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">No reference to
corporate personhood. No reference to money as free speech. No
mention of public campaign financing. Lots of other things missing.
She does specifically address both primary and general elections,
something one of the others do.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://movetoamend.org/amendment"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Move
to Amend</span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">A
progressive group known as <a href="http://movetoamend.org/amendment">Move
to Amend</a> has proposed an amendment that would overturn Citizen's
United by affirming that corporations are not people, specifically
stating that money is not free speech, approving legislative controls
over campaign spending, and prohibiting candidate's from using their
own money as campaign resources. It does not, however, address
public financing of federal campaigns. Otherwise, it is pretty good.</span></span></span></div>
<h3 class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<a href="http://www.renewdemocracy.org/"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Renew
Democracy Amendment</span></span></span></a></h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">A
grassroots organization known as <a href="http://www.renewdemocracy.org/">Renew
Democracy</a> has proposed amendment that is totally unstructured and
very confusing. It does not directly address the corporate
personhood issue or the “money is speech” issue. It does not
recommend public financing of campaigns as a means of getting money
out of politics. It uses some vague and undefined phrases, as you
will see in the text below, which is the entire text of the
amendment.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>The
Renew Democracy Amendment</b></span></span></b></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The right of the
individual qualified citizen voter to participate in and directly
elect all candidates by popular vote in all pertinent local, state,
and federal elections shall not be questioned and the right to vote
is limited to individuals. The right to contribute to political
campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual
citizens. Political campaign and political party contributions shall
not exceed an amount reasonably affordable by the average American.
The rights of all groups, associations and organizations to other
political speech may be regulated by Congress but only as to volume
and not content and only to protect the right of the individual
voter’s voice to be heard.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Summary.</b></u></span>
There you have it – the collective effort of thirteen groups, all
seemingly focused on improving our corrupt political system. Some
are better focused than others, and some seem to be blind to the true
nature of the problems that beset us and how to solve them. I think
that somewhere among them are the seeds of political, and not just
electoral, reform.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Conclusion.</b></u></span>
It will be a difficult job to get such an amendment through
Congress, but it must be done. It will be difficult to get 38 of our
50 states to ratify such an amendment, but it must be done. The
survival of our democracy is at stake. For the sake of our children
and all who come after them, it must be done.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-30340288244930343672012-01-06T23:06:00.000-08:002013-07-24T19:00:44.797-07:00The "Saving American Democracy" Amendment<br />
Senator <a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c" style="color: #660000;">Bernie
Sanders</a> of Vermont has proposed legislation to pass a
Constitutional amendment to address the problem of huge money sources
in electoral politics. A complete copy of the amendment can be found
<a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Saving-American-Democracy.pdf">here.</a>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
At his site,
<a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c" style="color: #660000;">Bernie
Sanders</a> says that his amendment would stipulate that:</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
Corporations
are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
Corporations
are subject to regulation by the people.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
Corporations
may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
Congress
and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
However, this
amendment and others like it, would only undo the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_310410023" style="color: #660000;">Citizens
United </a><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf" style="color: #660000;">ruling</a>
and leave political corruption at the same unacceptable level it was
at before the Supreme Court weighed in with its opinion. My
major problems with this legislation lie in the following:</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
It is
primarily aimed only at reversing the<span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf" style="color: #660000;">Citizens
United ruling</a><span style="color: #660000;">.
</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
It
restricts only for-profit corporations and limited liability
entities, but not non-profit organizations
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
It would
not get money out of politics.
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
Rather, it
would just get for-profit entities out of elections..
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
It says
that corporations would be subject to regulation by the people, but
provides for this to be done through their elected representatives.
This doesn't even seem to be a change.
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
When it
comes to not making “campaign contributions or any election
expenditures, I can see the possibility of loopholes that
corporations could use to get around this provision.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
The
amendment leaves it up to Congress and the states to pass
legislation to enact this amendment. They already have the power to
do this. We've seen what they have done thus far, and, while they
might be convinced to pass an amendment to reverse the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf" style="color: #660000;">Citizens
United ruling</a>, it is not likely that they will enact any major
controls on other gifts of money, goods, or services.
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
This particular
amendment appears to be somewhat like tossing a bone to a barking dog
just to quiet him and keep him from attacking. If it also distracts
the public from the fact that it doesn't even address the issue of
getting money out of politics, all the better for the politicians.
There is no mention of restricting lobbying, so lobbyists could still
feel free to contribute money, goods, or services and bill them to
the corporations they represent as business expenses or bury the in
their consulting fees.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
In my opinion,
this is just a baby step in the right direction, when we urgently
need a giant leap.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-12989267546176520562011-12-23T15:42:00.000-08:002013-07-24T18:56:59.009-07:00Big Problems with Our Two-Party System<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><i><u><b>Where
a Two-Party System Can Function Well.</b></u></i></span><i><b>
</b></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
any country where there is a two-party system, these parties
represent opposing ideologies. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a
perceived need for two parties. However, as long as there is
sufficient overlap in their positions where they can find some common
ground between them, and as long as both parties have the best
interests of the country and its people at heart, the two-party
system can function well.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>Advantages</b></u></span><span style="color: #004586;"><u><b>.</b></u></span>
In a two-party system, voters are exposed to only two different
ideologies and it is relatively easy to contrast their platforms and
positions against their own beliefs and goals. It tends to be an
“either/or” situation which simplifies the decision-making
process. When there are multiple parties, it is more difficult to
assess their comparative differences and to decide for whom one might
choose to vote. When a two-party system has been established for a
long time, the party positions are well known to, and generally
understood by, the electorate.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Two-Party
System Needs Centrists.</b></span> Two-party systems are
supposed to encourage political parties to focus on the areas of
overlap in their positions with one another and to cooperate in
enacting legislation that promotes those positions for the good for
the country. This should result in a form of centrism where the two
parties overlap on common ground. When this is true, it can promote
stability and and progress, resulting in greater satisfaction among
voters. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>"The
Loyal Opposition."</b></u></span> In those areas
where there is disagreement, there used to be a concept known as “the
loyal opposition.” This term reflects the fact that the electorate
put a particular person in power to govern for the good of the
people. Out of respect for the electorate, the party not in power may
defer to the will of the voters and compromise with the party in
power for the common good. The greater the margin of victory for the
ruling party, the greater would be the cooperation of the minority
party. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>But
What Happened?</b></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">
However, as reported in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/weekinreview/22stolberg.html?pagewanted=all">New
York Times</a> in 2009:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>... in the partisan politics of recent
decades, another view developed, advanced by Congressional leaders
like <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/newt_gingrich/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Newt
Gingrich</a>, the former House speaker, that the minority party has
the right, even obligation, to stick to its ideological principles.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>Result:
Democracy Threatened.</b></u></span> Thus it is that we see
most of the advantages of a two-party system slip from the grasp of
democracy and democracy itself is in the stranglehold of what has
become a two-party political duopoly.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #004586;"><u><b>Disadvantages.</b></u></span>
The spirit of bi-partisanship has been virtually cast aside. Whenever
there are vestiges of such cooperation, it is frequently for the good
of the two parties involved as much as it is the good of the American
people as a whole. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>Two-Party
System at Its Worst.</b></u></span> The loyal opposition has
evolved into a royal pain, as it fails repeatedly (and even refuses)
to find common ground with the party in power and expresses a firm
stance against anything that might smack of cooperation with the
other party. The situation today has gotten so out of hand that the
Republican Party has vowed that they will take any action necessary
to see that the sitting president will be a one-term president. The
result is a Congress that passes relatively meaningless legislation
such as declaring pizza to be a vegetable and reaffirming “In God
We Trust” as the national motto, while risking deadlock, lowered
credit ratings, and threats of shutting down the government. That is
not doing the will of the people who put them in office, but is
totally self-serving.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>Where
Are the Moderates?</b></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> The
greatest areas of cooperation in the past have rested with the more
moderate (or centrist} members of each party. However, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389297n">CBS
News</a> recently reported that research has found that the number of
moderate Senators has fallen steadily from 60 in 1982 down to 36 in
1994, to 9 in 2002, and to zero now. That leaves virtually no area of
overlap between the two parties and little chance of bi-partisan
support or compromise.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>How
Extreme Can You Be?</b></u></span> Competition between the two
parties had devolved into a rivalry for control, and each views their
opposing party as the enemy who must be contained or beaten.
Candidates frequently campaign not on what they can do for the
country, but on how different they are from their competitors. Among
the present Republican candidates for president, we have experienced
a great rivalry as to which candidate is the most extreme in their
conservatism as though that is a virtue, when it is more likely to
become a vice that will disenfranchise all Americans who are not of
the same ideology.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>Enmity
Breeds Contempt</b></u></span><span style="color: #004586;"><u><b>.</b></u></span>
Over time, this enmity between – and sometimes even within – the
parties grows into bitterness and hatred. Neither party wants to
cooperate with the other party, particularly the one that controls
the White House, lest they be seen as cooperating with the enemy and
collaborating in accomplishments might be seen as those of the party
in power at the time. Distortion, baiting, and and name calling
have become the norm, but compromise has become a dirty word.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>And
the Contempt Spreads.</b></u></span> These negative sentiments are
accepted and espoused by the close followers and strong supporters of
the two parties. They are even encouraged by the parties themselves.
Some media coverage has become strongly biased toward one political
ideology and against the other. Eventually, this poisons and
polarizes our country and its people, resulting in a central
government that is divided against itself. This opposition itself
becomes paramount, the will of the people is subverted, and the
country suffers immensely as a direct result.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>Impact
on Democracy.</b></u></span> It is these political parties that make
the rules – who can run for elective office for their party, who
can “debate” in public forums, who can vote in which elections,
and who they can vote for.. When there are only two parties on most
ballots, especially for federal office, we have little choice but to
perpetuate this charade of democracy that has been perpetrated on the
American people. Most of the time, the only choice we have is to vote
for “the lesser of two evils,” resulting in perpetuating “evil”
in office. The only other option is not to vote for those particular
positions or not to vote at all. Unfortunately, too many Americans
have opted for the latter option. As a result, we often have
elections decided by about 40% of the electorate. If a winning
candidate should get 50% of that vote, he or she would receive only
20% of the total electorate. This is hardly a democracy in which
majority rules.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>A
Country Drastically in Need of Change.</b></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">
At his essay titled </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b><a href="http://www.experiencefestival.com/wp/article/a-third-party-vote-is-not-wasted">A
Third Party Vote is Not Wasted</a>,</b></i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>
</b></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Szandor Blestman states: </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>It is well past time the stranglehold this
duopoly has on the nation was broken and someone else got the
opportunity to lead. The change that this nation needs will not come
from the establishment candidates who simply pay lip service to the
concept of change. Perhaps the change needs to come from the people.
We must be the change we seek. To help accomplish this, we need to
change the types of people we vote into office.”<br /></i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>Hope
for the Future.</b></u></span> The writer goes onto say:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">It would give this journalist great hope
to see just ten percent or so of the electorate voting third party,
if for no other reason than to send a message to the establishment
that we grow weary of their failed policies and are looking for a
genuine shift in direction. If twenty percent of the people were to
do so it would be fantastic, the politicians would take notice, and I
would be exuberant. The more people that can be convinced to vote
third party, any third party, the better in my opinion ...”</span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>More
on Third-Party Candidates and Voting in 2012</b></u></span></span><span style="color: #280099;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>.</b></u></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">
For readers who would like to read more about third-party candidates
and some recommendations for voting in the coming 2012 elections,
please go to </span><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-for-third-party-candidates.html"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Problems
for Third Party Candidates</b></i></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">
and/or </span><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/eight-step-approach-to-awaken-america.html"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>The
Quickest Way to Solve Our Problems?</b></i></span></a><br />
.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>For another slant on this problem, check out</b><i><b> <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Two-Party-Tyranny-by-Ben-Petit-120117-878.html">Third Party Tyranny.</a></b></i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="2" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Coming Up: </b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/elections-heart-of-democracy.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Elections :Heart of Democracy or Height of Hypocrisy?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-presidential-debates-duopoly-reigns.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In Presidential Debates, Duopoly Reigns</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-presidential-debates-duopoly-reigns.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Presidential Debates: Fraud or Farce?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-for-third-party-candidates.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Problems For Third-Party Candidates</span></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-73912026290049072082011-12-21T16:17:00.001-08:002013-07-24T18:49:03.519-07:00Congress Ignores the Will of the People<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="color: #280099; font-size: small;"><u><b>Who
Do These People Think They Are?</b></u></span><span style="font-size: small;"> In short, they think
they are our rulers and we are their servants, instead of it being
the other way around. We elect them to serve their country and its
people. Instead, they represent their own best interests and those
of the wealthiest one percent. The fact is that most of them care
much less about the country's welfare and much more about their own
welfare and that of the richest among us.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="color: #280099; font-size: small;"><u><b>Do
We Have the Right People in Congress?</b></u></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Absolutely not!
Members of Congress </span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">are
the select few (535, to be exact) chosen from our entire population
of 307 million who have been elected to represent the best interests
of the entire country. Each House member represents an average of
more than 700,000 citizens, and each Senator represents an average of
more than 3 million citizens. That's a pretty heavy burden to bear,
so it stands to reason that these representatives should be selected
from among the cream of the crop of the political elite when it comes
to intelligence, creativity, leadership, and the ability to
accomplish meaningful legislation on behalf of their. Based upon the
performance and achievements of the both the 112th</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and the 113th Congress (so far), we and they have failed miserably.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="color: #280099; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>Who
Are Their Constituencies?</b></u></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
A</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">s stated elsewhere in this
blog, Congress members have multiple constituencies, interests, and
priorities. Often, these conflict with one another. That is when
their priorities come into play. Here is my summation of the
priorities of typical politicians at the state and federal levels.</span></div>
<ul style="font-family: inherit;">
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><b>Once
in office, their first loyalty is to themselves</b></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
and doing anything they can to ensure that they get reelected. One
of the greatest fears of any Congress member is to get voted out of
office.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><b>Next
is their allegiance to their political parties</b></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
to ensure that enough of their members get elected to push their
political agendas through their legislation. This will also help
gain party support when the officeholder seeks reelection.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><b>Third
are their financial backers</b></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
– the corporations and the super-rich who contribute heavily to
Congressional campaigns, and who run ads supporting their anointed
candidates while excoriating their opponents. This includes
lobbyists, PACs, Super PACs, 527 Groups and other special interest
groups. The ;politicians have to give something back to these
entities in order to secure their financial support for reelection.
Money talks, and politicians have perfect hearing – especially
whenever the words “contribution”, “donation,” or “check”
are mentioned.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><b>Fourth
come the people who voted for them. </b></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
In public, most Congress members say these people are their
constituents, but you can see just how high they come on their
priority list. During election years, you will see them pandering
to those whose votes they need to get reelected. In other years,
they will do little for their benefit. However, when they do
something for them, they will trumpet it from the heavens as though
they are the second coming of the Messiah.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><b>And
dead last come the rest of the people in the country</b></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
whose best interests they are also supposed to represent.</span><span style="font-size: small;">
This group represents the overwhelming majority of us. This is
supposed to include voters and non-voters alike, whether children or
adults, and whether they are eligible to vote or not.. However, most
legislators tend to consider their state or district constituencies
to be only those who voted for them prior elections.</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="color: #280099; font-size: small;"><u><b>Why
Do They Ignore the Will of the American People?</b></u></span><span style="font-size: small;"> The
simple reason for this is “because they can.” They know that
they can thwart the will of the American people and still get
reelected. They can do this for the following reasons:</span></div>
<ol style="font-family: inherit;">
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
There is a built-in bias toward
incumbents. Poll <span style="font-weight: normal;">results
released in </span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">October,
2011, showed that Congress had an approval rating of only <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/259646/the-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-oct-2011.pdf">9%</a>.
However, another poll</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
released in December, 2011, showed </span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that:,
al</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">though
76% of the people feel that most members of Congress </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">don't
deserve</span></u></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
to be re-elected As a result, in 90% of the races, the incumbent
gets reelected.</span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
Incumbents are able to raise more
money than new office seekers. And it is well known that in more
than 90% of the elections, the candidate who raises the most
campaign funds wins the election.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-right: 0.2in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">
Electoral districts in most states
are determined by politicians. As a result, the party in power
generally secures a redistricting plan that is designed to keep
party incumbents in office. Gerrymandering may be a dirty word to
voters, but it is a Godsend to incumbent politicians because
candidates from opposing parties are generally helpless in opposing
this process.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.08in; margin-top: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">This
is by no means an all-inclusive list of why it is so hard to unseat
incumbents. With the deck stacked so heavily in their favor, it is
little wonder that politicians turn a deaf ear to the people of this
country.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="color: #280099; font-size: small;"><u><b>What
is the Effect of Incumbent Bias?</b></u></span><span style="font-size: small;"> When the same people
get elected to Congress again and again, we get the same old ideas,
the same old practices, and the same old cronyism . In essence, we
have a stagnant Congress, but one that has a stranglehold on our
country . These politicians don't care much about the will of the
people, and they don't care at all about public opinion, whether
expressed in letters, e-mails, tweets, or polls, because they have
rigged things in favor of their election, term after term after term.
This is certainly not to the advantage of our country. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="color: #280099; font-size: small;"><u><b>People
First.</b></u></span><span style="font-size: small;"> The people must come first, not last, and those
who do not see that, agree with that, and legislate to that end do
not represent the people and deserve to be voted out of office. That
includes virtually every member of Congress, and it is almost
impossible to determine the few who are the good apples in a basket
of rotten ones. So, we might have to sacrifice a few of the the good
ones for the sake of our country, its citizens, and our democracy.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.1in; margin-top: 0.1in;">
<span style="color: #280099; font-size: small;"><u><b>Use
Your Clout and Vote Them Out.</b></u></span><span style="font-size: small;"> It is time for us to
muster our collective elective strength and vote as many incumbents
out of office as we possibly can. We need to send a very strong but
clear message to the remaining representatives that we are “mad as
hell and we aren't going to take it any more.” At the same time,
however, we don't want to vote in party politicians who are going to
fall right in line with their cohorts and work for the same
priorities as their predecessor. We don't just need new blood in
Congress. We need a new source of that blood, and it preferably
won't come from either the radical right or the extreme left. We
need progressive populists who know the Constitution and what it
stands for, and who will to restore to this country once again a
government of the people, by the people, for the people.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-13128283464621435582011-12-11T11:26:00.000-08:002012-02-04T10:42:30.127-08:00Is the Occupy Movement Running Amok?<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">On Monday, December 12, the Occupy movement plans to stop international commerce at eleven ports on the West Coast from Alaska to San Diego. In early November, the Occupy Oakland movement was very successful in shutting down the Port of Oakland. This was accomplished largely because the police allowed it and because it was tacitly supported by the </span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ilwu&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilwu.org%2F&ei=fuXkTs_UOqaniALYy_DQBg&usg=AFQjCNFoBxbbviehAX2r6Kth0K4KTUrSEA&cad=rja">International Longshore and Warehouse Union</a> (See <u>prior</u> letter of support for OWS from the ILWU at: <a href="http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/10/ilwu-int%E2%80%99l-president-bob-mcellrath-releases-solidarty-statement-in-support-of-%E2%80%98occupy-wall-street%E2%80%99/">ILWU Int’l President Bob McEllrath releases solidarity statement in support of ‘Occupy Wall Street</a>.)</span></i></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Buoyed, perhaps, by this relatively easy success, they are now taking on a much more ambitious action. Will it be as successful as last month's effort? I think not, and here is why I feel that way.</span></div>
<ol style="font-family: inherit;">
<li><i> </i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">This time around, there is no such approval. In fact, there is actual opposition. (See multiple sources below.) </span></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span></i> <br />
</li>
<li><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">While some longshoremen supported last month's action, others only tolerated it, and that level of support and tolerance is waning among their ranks. As a result, there is considerably greater opposition to this sort of action.</span></span></i><br />
<br />
</li>
<li><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">There is a growing feeling that no self-appointed group should decide what actions are good or bad for another group without that group's consent, agreement, and support. The longshoremen feel that they should be deciding this for themselves, in unity with one another, and in full control of its own plans and actions. They have their union that speaks for them in matters of work, and the Occupy movement is not authorized to speak or demonstrate on their behalf. </span></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span></i> <br />
</li>
<li><i> </i><span style="font-size: small;">The Occupy action in November accomplished essentially nothing of positive tangible value for the longshoremen, the community, or the 99% the movement purports to represent. On the other hand, it cost Port workers tens of thousands of dollars in lost wages and truck rentals and had little or no impact of any significance on the big-money interests the movement opposes.</span><br />
<br />
</li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">During the November action, the police took a back-seat position. They did not interfere with the shutdown. They were hardly visible, although they were there and available for traffic control as needed and in case there were any violent outbreaks. This time will probably be different. The various local governments and law enforcement agencies are not likely to just stand by and watch as they did on November 2. Many viewed that shutdown to be a one-time action. This second, highly-expanded action is now viewed as something that has to be controlled, contained, and confined. Shutting down one port is an inconvenience. Attempting to shut down eleven ports constitutes a threat to interstate and international commerce that these cities cannot be expected to tolerate.</span><br />
<br />
</li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">There are already indications that there could be violence. One organizer, Boots Riley, has been urging people on his Twitter feed to bring shields so they can "push through a police line.” To make such a recommendation in advance of the demonstration is inflammatory and promotes physical insurrection that can lead to violence. That is not my idea of a peaceful demonstration. It appears that they are inviting a non-peaceful, confrontational demonstration, or they wouldn't be making plans to push through police lines. </span><br />
<br />
</li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Because the ports are involved in interstate and international commerce, and many of the ships that would be affected are from other countries, this could provoke action by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in addition to local police, police from other jurisdictions, county sheriff officers, and the Highway Patrol. Because three of these ports are among the largest in the country, and because of national and international implications, it could be just a short step to calling out the National Guard to preserve order.</span> We don't need or want that.<br />
</li>
</ol>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Some of the strongest points against the action come from an article in the <i><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/11/MN2G1MAO6E.DTL">San Francisco Chronicle.</a> </i><span style="font-style: normal;">Here are some excerpts extracted from that article.</span></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">... unlike last time, when the area's major unions gave tacit or outright approval, many of them see Monday's action as disruptive and unnecessary.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">And some occupation activists are labeling it as too confrontational, with the protest's potential for violence detracting from Occupy's stated intention of narrowing the chasm between rich and poor.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"'Support is one thing,' Robert McEllrath, president of the International Longshoreman and Warehouse Union, wrote to his members last week. 'Outside groups attempting to co-opt our struggle in order to advance a broader agenda is quite another and one that is destructive to our democratic process.'"</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">... unions represent more than 1,400 workers at the [Port of Oakland]. Other unions that have refused to endorse the shutdown, including the California Nurses Association, declined to comment - all apparently not wanting to antagonize protest organizers.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">However, some activists in the roughly 30 other Occupy organizations in the Bay Area have also concluded that a port blockade is too extreme. They say confronting police and blockading commerce is as outdated as they now regard the tent cities recently cleared by authorities.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">In fact, outside of major cities, some activists so strongly disagree with confrontational tactics that they now call themselves '99 Percenters' rather than 'Occupiers.'</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"'The 99 percent is non-confrontational,' said Ellis Goldberg, a marketer who has organized Occupy protests in Dublin and San Ramon. 'You don't use a bat to get your point across, and this port action is a bat. It's going to hurt innocents - in this case, port workers and truckers.'"</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">These are just some of the items from that article Read it in its entirety at <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/11/MN2G1MAO6E.DTL"><i><b>Opposition grows to Occupy's port shutdown plan.</b></i></a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<b><i><a href="http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/12/countdown-to-occupy-protest-shutdown-attempt/"><span style="font-size: small;">Countdown to Occupy Protest Shutdown Attempt</span></a></i></b></h2>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The Occupy movement has yet to clearly define the goals it hopes to accomplish in shutting down the ports. Nor has the movement come to grips with the impact of its actions on the many longshoremen, truck drivers, rail yard employees and other blue-collar workers in the harbor, all of whom are members in good standing of the 99 percent. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span> </div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><a href="http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/12/oakland-port-to-occupiers-dont-shut-us-down/">Oakland Port to Occupiers: Don’t shut us down</a> </b></i></span> </div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"It does not serve the goals of the movement to shut down the Port of Oakland," said Port Commission President Pamela Calloway.. On Nov. 2, demonstrators were able to bring the port to a standstill as part of their Day of Action. Calloway says they are still adding up the cost from that action. "It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that was for the event on Nov. 2," Calloway said. "We cannot afford to be shut down again."</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">When the port was shut down Nov 2., Calloway said she was at a trade conference in Africa and had to answer plenty of questions to potential international customers. "People are concerned, is Oakland a safe place to be?" said Calloway. "We worked really hard with our customers, with our business partners, to make sure that they understand that we are open for business, we are a good place to do business."</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The ILWU issued a strongly-worded statement following the Occupy movement's announcement of their plans. "It does not serve the goals of the movement to shut down the Port of Oakland," said Port Commission President Pamela Calloway. "The port needs to be open, and people need to be working here."</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The second planned shutdown does not have the support of the Longshore Workers Union (ILWU). The ILWU issued a strongly-worded statement following the Occupy movement's announcement of their plans. "The ILWU...and Local 21 are not coordinating, independently or in conjunction with, any self-proclaimed organization or group to shut down any port or terminal," the letter read.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<b><br />
</b></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><a href="http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/12/unions-say-no-to-occupy-portland%E2%80%99s-call-for-a-waterfront-strike/">Unions say no to Occupy Portland’s call for a waterfront strike</a></b> </i></span> </div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">If I wanted to shut down the port, I could do it without Occupy. I don’t need ’em,” says Jeff Smith, president of ILWU’s Columbia River District Council. “This is a question for the Occupy movement: Why would I want to send my people home? Why would I take a job away from somebody?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">I don’t get what they’re thinking. It’s my job to put people to work. I’ve got jobs for ’em, so I’m going to put ’em to work. And I’m going to take some of Wall Street’s money.”</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<u><i><b><br />
</b></i></u></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<u><i><b><a href="http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/11/longshoremens-union-rejects-occupy-protestors-call-for-strike/"><span style="font-size: small;">Longshoremen’s Union Rejects Occupy Protestors’ Call for Strike</span></a></b></i></u></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The International Longshore and Warehouse Union is not exactly known for backing away from a fight. But the feisty workers apparently draw the line at calls for strikes coming from out-of-state Occupy protesters. As hinted at last week to me by union sources, that call has now been rejected by the ILWU as a whole. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Robert McEllrath, ILWU President, put out this statement:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.64in 0.06in 0.6in;">
“<span style="font-size: small;">Only ILWU members or their elected representatives can authorize job actions on behalf of the union, and any decisions made by groups outside of the union’s democratic process do not hold water, regardless of the intent.” </span> </div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In other words: Thanks for the suggestion, folks. Next time keep it to yourself</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<b><a href="http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/11/tdn-ilwu-wont-join-occupy-oaklands-attempts-to-shut-down-west-coast-ports/"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>ILWU won’t join Occupy Oakland’s attempts to shut down West Coast ports</i></span></a></b></h2>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Facing hefty fines for illegal picketing, union longshore leaders this week rejected a call from Occupy Oakland protesters to shut down West Coast ports Dec. 12 in support of the union's dispute with the owners of the new EGT grain terminal at the Port of Longview.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">A federal judge sided with the ILWU and sent the case to a labor arbitrator, who is expected to hear the case in December. In the meantime, the judge fined the ILWU about $315,000 for illegal picketing, including blocking incoming grain trains Sept. 7 and 21 and vandalism occurring during an early-morning raid on the terminal Sept. 8.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<b><a href="http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/11/ilwu-clarifies-position-regarding-third-party-protests-at-ports/"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>ILWU clarifies position regarding third-party protests at ports</i></span></a></b></h2>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.4in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In response to recent third-party announcements that community activists will attempt to shut down various West Coast marine terminals on December 12, 2011, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) sent a memo to its 15,000 longshore members and leaders emphasizing the union’s internal democratic process and stating its rejection of third-party calls for job actions that have not been sanctioned by its Officers or voted on by member representatives. The memo stated in part, </span> </div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.6in;">
<b>“<span style="font-size: small;">To be clear, the ILWU, the Coast Longshore Division, and Local 21 are not coordinating independently or in conjunction with any self-proclaimed organization or group to shut down any port or terminal, particularly as it relates to our dispute with EGT in Longview.”</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin: 0.06in 0.6in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0.06in; margin-top: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In view of all this negative feedback, why would any organization persist in actions that are clearly unsolicited, unwanted, unwarranted, unwelcome, and unnecessary, and which are significantly harmful to those they purport to help? What gives them the moral right and prerogative to inflict this sort of action upon them? They will only do further damage to their cause and to the cause of the 99%.</span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-82656821852963972642011-12-09T20:58:00.000-08:002012-02-04T10:43:27.085-08:00NY Tax Plan: Occupy Wall Street Victory?<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">The State of New York is now replacing their “Millionaires' Tax” with “The Fair Tax.” They have issued press releases touting it as tax increases for the rich and tax reductions for the middle class. And several members of the media have taken them at their word. Here are some examples with links to individual articles:<br />
</span><br />
</span></div>
<h1 class="western" style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5414305253042363899&postID=8265682185296397264" name="lw_1323506836_2"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5414305253042363899&postID=8265682185296397264" name="lw_1323506836_1"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5414305253042363899&postID=8265682185296397264" name="lw_1323506836_3"></a> <span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Yahoo News: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/ny-california-hitting-millionaires-again-073245513.html">NY, California hitting up millionaires, again</a></span></span></span></h1>
<h1 class="western" style="line-height: 0.20in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Hollywood moguls and Manhattan stock brokers are facing a slap by the Occupy Wall Street movement as California and New York again target high-wage earners to address a continued fiscal crisis in the states.<br />
<br />
</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">The New York Times: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/nyregion/who-benefits-from-cuomos-tax-package.html?_r=1">Who Benefits From the Tax Package</a></span></span></span></h1>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">DEMOCRATS, LABOR UNIONS AND OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS<br />
</span></span><span style="color: black;">Advocates for extending the state’s so-called millionaires’ tax, which expires Dec. 31, can claim a partial victory, and an impressive one, given Governor <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/andrew_m_cuomo/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Andrew M. Cuomo</a>’s longtime opposition to raising taxes on wealthy New Yorkers.</span></span></div>
<h1 class="western" style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></h1>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><b>Los Angeles Times:</b></span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><b><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/ny-governor-legislature-reach-a-deal-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-and-reduce-them-for-the-middle-class.html">New York deal: More taxes for rich, fewer for middle class</a></b></span><span style="color: black;">,</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;">New York’s governor and legislative leaders struck a deal Tuesday to raise taxes on the wealthy and slightly reduce them for the middle class.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><b>Reuters:</b></span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><b><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-newyorkstate-taxes-idUSTRE7B523L20111206">NY aims to raise taxes on rich, give middle-class a cut</a>.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;">New York's millionaires will pay higher taxes while 4.4 million middle-class and upper-income New Yorkers will get tax cuts, under a reform plan the governor and legislature unveiled on Tuesday.<br />
<br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><b>Poughkeepsie Journal:</b></span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poughkeepsiejournal.com%2Farticle%2F20111208%2FNEWS12%2F111208005%2FLawmakers-pass-Cuomo-s-middle-class-tax-cut-deal&ei=aqTjTvyPB8qviALz0cC8Bg&usg=AFQjCNFOuJmSzJHy4hRNF-NxmCB9y-rqrA&sig2=iKmIkE0EC70R2EF4HyOTWQ">Lawmakers pass Cuomo's middle class tax-cut deal</a></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;">The state Legislature voted to cut income taxes for the middle class and raise $1.9 billion through higher taxes on the wealthy during a special session Wednesday and early today.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><b>Christian Science Monitor: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1206/New-York-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich.-Is-it-a-blueprint-for-Congress">New York to raise taxes on the rich. Is it a blueprint for Congress?</a></b></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;">In the state that's home to <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Wall+Street" target="_self">Wall Street</a>, taxes on the rich are about to go up.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
</div>
<h1 class="western" style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span></span></h1>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><u><b>Could This Be a Victory for Occupy Wall Street?</b></u> Is the message finally sinking in and getting results? Don't bet on it until you look at the package that was passed. As the old expression goes, “the devil is in the details.”</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><u><b>New York's Basic Plan: Cut Taxes for the Rich</b></u></span><span style="color: black;">. <a href="http://www.propublica.org/">ProPublica</a> has published a brief evaluation of the New York tax plan (</span><a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/nys-tax-overhaul-said-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-actually-doesnt"><span style="color: black;"><b>NY’s Tax Overhaul, Said to Raise Taxes on the Rich, Actually Doesn’t</b></span></a><span style="color: black;">), based upon an article in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/07/nyregion/proposed-changes-to-rates.html?ref=nyregion">New York Times</a> ). ProPublica points out that the rich are not getting an increase over the 2011 rates at all. They are actually getting a </span><span style="color: black;"><u>decrease</u></span><span style="color: black;">. Those with household incomes from </span><span style="color: black;"><b>$300K-$500K</b></span><span style="color: black;"> get a reduction of </span><span style="color: black;"><b>1%</b></span><span style="color: black;"> from the rate they paid in 2011, and those with incomes from </span><span style="color: black;"><b>$500,000-$2 million</b></span><span style="color: black;"> get a reduction of </span><span style="color: black;"><b>2.12%</b></span><span style="color: black;">. Nothing was mentioned about people making above $2 million, but I presume they would pay at the same rate..</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><u><b>An Insignificant Cut for the Middle Class.</b></u></span><span style="color: black;"> Meanwhile, those with incomes between </span><span style="color: black;"><b>$40K and $150K</b></span><span style="color: black;"> get reductions of only </span><span style="color: black;"><b>four tenths of a percent</b></span><span style="color: black;"> and those between </span><span style="color: black;"><b>$150K and $300K</b></span><span style="color: black;"> get a reduction of only </span><span style="color: black;"><b>two tenths of a percent. (</b></span><span style="color: black;">Nothing is said about households with incomes below $40,000.) So, this is what is called “The Fair Tax Plan” that is to replace “The Millionaire’s Tax?” This is the tax overhaul that has been passed off as “<a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/nys-tax-overhaul-said-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-actually-doesnt/single">raising taxes on the rich and cutting them for the middle class</a>?”</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><u><b>Rates Tell Only Part of the Story.</b></u> The ProPublica article correctly points out that the income range of $500K to $2M+ received the biggest decrease in tax rates: -2.12%. This is hardly the middle class, yet its rate reduction over last year is five to ten times greater than the reductions for the two lower income classes. And, when these reduced rate get applied to actual taxes paid, the situation becomes even more unbalanced. Here are some examples:</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;">A household with <b>$40,000</b> in taxable income would have paid <b>$2,740</b> in taxes in 2011, and would pay <b>$2,580</b> in 2012. This is a <b>$160</b> reduction in taxes over the prior year—or about <b>$13.33</b> a month or about 44 cents per day — hardly anything that will make a difference in closing the income and wealth gap. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;">A household with <b>$110,000</b> in taxable income would have paid <b>$7,535</b> in taxes in <b>2011</b> and would pay <b>$7,095</b> in 2012. This is a <b>$440</b> reduction in taxes over the prior year. This amounts to about <b>$27</b> a month or $1.21 per day—again not enough to make much of a difference.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Meanwhile, those with a household income of <b>$300,001 to $500,000</b> would get reductions ranging from <b>$3,000 to $5,000</b> (<b>$250 to $417</b> per month). And those with a household income of <b>$500,000 to $2,000,000</b> would get reductions ranging from $10,600 to $42,400 (<b>$883 to $3,533 per month</b>). </span> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;">To me, this appears to be perpetuating the huge income gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” and does nothing to close it</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><u><b>Political Spin?</b></u></span><span style="color: black;"> This plan should never be touted as “raising taxes on the rich and cutting them for the middle class.” That is a farcical misrepresentation. If they really WANTED to be honest, they would say that there are across-the-board increases for all income levels compared to last year, which represent some increases compared to 2008. Even then, however, it would be most accurate to frame the tax overhaul in terms of the most recent rates, instead of reaching back three years, just to make their legislation look better than it really it. It appears that much of the media bought into the spin. That shows how much we can rely on them for factual information -- not that this should come as much of a surprise.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><u><b>Back to the Main Question.</b></u> With regard to the title question, I have to say that the New York tax plan cannot be considered a victory for Occupy Wall Street. First of all, New York already had its millionaire's tax plan in place for the 2009 tax year, more than two years before OWS started its movement, and it expires this year. One could convincingly make the case that perhaps OWS got the idea from the State of New York. In addition, the new tax plan is worse than the former one, because it created an even wider gap between the 1% and the 99%, which runs counter to the OWS motive for taxing the rich.<br />
</span><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><u><b>And in California.</b></u>.. The Golden State has also had a tax plan in the past that imposed higher rates on the wealthy, and they are considering going back to something similar to alleviate their present fiscal woes. Several plans to accomplish this (or to prevent it) will be on the ballot next year.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><u><b>Conclusion.</b></u></span><span style="color: black;"> The idea of taxing the rich may not have originated with OWS, but they must be given some credit for championing the cause and increasing the awareness of millions of Americans regarding this option. </span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-64267439535361748452011-12-01T11:39:00.000-08:002012-02-13T10:23:04.335-08:00How Congress Has Occupied Wall StreetThese are excerpts of an opinion piece that appeared in a recent edition of The Wall Street Journal. It was written by somebody with whom I seldom agree, but this is one of those rare exceptions. I'll provide a link at the end of this message that will reveal the author of these comments. It may surprise you as well.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers?” </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad … accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5414305253042363899&postID=6426743953536174845" name="article_story_body"></a> “The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they'll moan that they can't govern effectively without it. Perhaps they'll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of "We the people" to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5414305253042363899&postID=6426743953536174845" name="articleTabs_panel_article1"></a> “… the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert public attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistle blower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren't really blind because they're managed by family members or friends.)”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.” </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this.” </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“...Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.”<br />
<br /></div>
If we had no other reasons (and we have plenty more), these are enough that we should demand an immediate and entire housecleaning of Congress and get people in office who are honestly and sincerely committed to a total reform of our political and economic systems for the good of our country – and who will live up to those commitments.<br />
<br />
(For the entire text of the article and the name of the author, click <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577040373463191222.html"><b>here</b></a>. <b> I am sure you will be surprised!</b>)<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="2" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="17"><b>Coming Up: </b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/big-problems-with-our-two-party-system.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Big Problems with Our Two-Party System</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5414305253042363899">Elections :Heart of Democracy or Height of Hypocrisy?</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-presidential-debates-duopoly-reigns.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In Presidential Debates, Duopoly Reigns</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" valign="TOP"><a href="http://restoringdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-presidential-debates-duopoly-reigns.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Presidential Debates: Fraud or Farce?</span></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5414305253042363899.post-48871903369483219342011-11-23T14:54:00.000-08:002012-02-04T10:45:43.018-08:00Time for Occupy Movement to Move On<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Message Received</b></u></span>. The Occupy movement accomplished the first step of what it set out to do. We have emphasized the tremendous economic disparity in this country and the undemocratic dominance of our government by big-money special interest groups. We have driven home the message that something needs to be done to address the inequality, inequity, and iniquity of our present social, political, and economic systems. So, what do we do and where do we go next to achieve our goals, whatever they may be?<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>We Need More Movement in Our Movement.</b></u></span> America got that first message. Now people want to know what comes next. Surely it isn't just continued occupations, confrontations, demonstrations, protests, work blockages and civil disobedience, with the occasional violence and abuse of authority that accompanies such proceedings. But that is all they are seeing – both now and on the horizon. They see no change, no progress, no structure, and no plans. The second act so far has been mostly a repeat of the first act, and the audience is leaving in droves.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Our Methods Are Outweighing Our Message</b></u></span>. Shutting down the Port of Oakland got a lot of press, but much of it came across as negative. When a veteran at an Oakland demonstration suffered a fractured skull, that was the news, not the message of the group. When anarchists defaced and destroyed both public and private property, that got the headlines, not the message of the movement. When cops flagrantly showered pepper spray on students in Berkeley and on and 84-year-old woman, that is what you saw and heard about on television, not the message of the movement. Marshall Mcluhan, who was born 100 years ago, once said “The medium is the message.” Unfortunately for our cause, the media being used by the Occupy movement to communicate their frustrations are mass protest and civil disobedience.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Where's the </b></u></span><span style="color: #280099;"><strike><u><b>Beef</b></u></strike></span><span style="color: #280099;"><u> </u></span><span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Support!</b></u></span> Recent polls demonstrate the the movement is losing is populist support. A <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150896/support-occupy-unchanged-criticize-approach.aspx">USAToday/Gallup poll</a> released in October reported that <b>20%</b> of those polled <u>disapprove</u> of the way the movement is being conducted. In November, that percentage jumped to <b>31%</b>, an increase of <b>55%</b>. <u>Approval</u> during the same period dropped from <b>25%</b> to only <b>20%</b>, a decrease of 25%. Those are some shocking percentages for a movement that is trying to represent 99% of the population, and it does not bode well for the future of the movement if it does not get its act together.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Organizations Need Structure and Leadership.</b></u></span> Any successful organization is needs to have a stated vision and mission, plus goals and objectives, and an organization to support them. This represents a charted course for the organization, something that is noticeably absent in its present state. . It also needs to have various checkpoints and milestones, much like a compass that ensures that the organization is on track toward its destination. And, of course, to carry the analogy a bit farther, there has to be a captain and a crew. Otherwise, the “ship” might as well be rudderless, because nobody will have specific responsibility to monitor the weather, set the sails, or steer the ship, and it will just flounder..<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Democratic Decision Making?</b></u></span><span style="color: #280099;"> </span>While the captain and crew could be selected democratically, day-to-day and minute-to-minute decisions have to be made by these people. It is not feasible or desirable to exercise the democratic process in every decision that must be made. You are likely to have decisions made based upon the whims of the group on a given day. Policies and long-term strategic and tactical plans can and probably should be made democratically. However, day-to-day management and decision making needs to be left to a leadership group. And that is another thing that is lacking at this point.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Role of “Leaders.”</b></u></span> We need people who can unify, and speak for the interests of, the entire group, and not just for their own personal interests. We don't need people like <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/occupy-wall-street-protesters-finish-journey-from-zuccotti-park-to-dc/2011/11/21/gIQAz6PDjN_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews" target="_blank">Dylan Bozlee</a>, of Hilo, Hawaii, who reported that he would rather travel across America than get a job. “Do I want to work?” he said. “Only if I wanted a home, wife, kids and a dog. If not, I think you’re ruining your life,” While everybody has a right to free speech, comments like this are taken up by the opposition as though they represent the Occupy group as a whole. The movement doesn't need comments like that. What is needed are leaders who can speak on behalf of the movement in an articulate and responsible manner. Bozlee, no matter how well-intentioned he may be, has played right into the hands of the movement's opposition.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Protection from Minority Views.</b></u></span> Without some form of central leadership, the movement leaves itself wide open to being defined by the personal views, actions, and comments of individuals, rather than the group itself, and its perception devolves to the lowest common denominator. Whether it be the the socialists, the Marxists, the American Communists, the anarchists, or the Dylan Bozlees of the movement, these people are feeding the opposition, not helping the cause, and their effect needs to be diminished.<br />
<br />
A spokesperson could also help explain elements of the movement that some people find questionable or objectionable, and could meet with authorities and government officials and possibly even create a spirit of understanding and cooperation, rather than misunderstanding and coercion.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #280099;"><u><b>Another View from the Outside.</b></u></span> Byron Williams put it quite well in his column in the <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_19352295" target="_blank">San Jose Mercury News</a>:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
“Without leadership that controls the message in a way most can understand, offering tangible solutions, providing guidance and sustaining morale when frustration consumes emotion, the Occupy movements will be vanquished into the flames of the first phase, leaving a few to brag about the several weeks their efforts to have a leaderless movement dominated the news cycle.</div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.4in; margin-right: 0.4in;">
<br /></div>
.<span style="font-weight: normal;">Personally, I think there should be a national leader or leadership group, with a similar arrangement in each of the major city groups. Smaller groups, at their option, may decide on a form of leadership that best suite their needs and direction.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11621623382362957121noreply@blogger.com0