To cancel the Declaration of Independence is not like repealing a law, except that the Declaration was the core of our founding and our laws, which will be repealed upon cancellation of that document. The Declaration of Independence was an announcement to the world that people living in America, at the time, discovered individual freedom better than the tyranny of the Old World.
They told the rest of the world that their Creator gave them the right to pursue their own individual interests, aspirations, using their own talents and skills, to make a better life for themselves and their families. The few elite, who ruled the many, did not give those rights, only took them away when they surfaced.
We hear many references to our Founding Documents, our state constitutions, the first three national constitutions, the Northwest Ordnance, the Federalist Papers, all those words that have tried to put a face on what America has created.
No written document has done more to describe America's big change in how people live in society than Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence, once the foundation also of the Democratic Party before it switched to Marxism and the Old World ideals of community interests being superior to individual interests.
When you look at the history of man on earth, up to the great American experiment and change, you see a few self-styled elite ruling and abusing the many, and life was pretty raw and threatening. America's great change created a bright spot on the planet that showed all humankind there was a better way to live.
Individual freedom became the focus of society and people used their Creator-given rights to be different, pursuing their own interests, aspirations, talents and skills to improve theirs and their family's lives. It worked well, and the comparisons with the rest of the world demonstrate the difference.
Americans today, however, want to change all of this. They demand change and are voting for it. The change they want is to cancel the Declaration of Independence and all its influences, so Americans can get back on-stream as part of the Old World, where the few elite rule the many and community interest is superior to individual interests. It is called getting back to life in the raw with all its threats.
Tomorrow, July 8th, could mark the beginning of official condoning of warrantless surveillance of law-abiding citizens in the US, not to mention foreign nationals. Much of this information has been covered by Glenn Greenwald in the past week.
In the video below, I talk about what every American needs to know - and do in the next 24 hours - about the new FISA (Federal Information and Surveillance Act) amendments. The interview, and below partial transcription, answers questions like.
-I don't have anything to hide. How does this affect me? -What if this type of surveillance is what has prevented another 9/11 from happening? -What are common inaccuracies about FISA reported in the media?
Find below how you can make a real impact in less than 60 seconds. Every person counts - the Senators who will vote are watching the numbers. 41 Senators can block the bill, and it's not too late.
Please do the following: How I ask you to spend 60 seconds
1. ALL AMERICANS: Go to the EFF website here and put in your zipcode to find your Senator's phone number. Call them and read the short script on the same page. If no answer, click the link at the bottom of the page to e-mail them. (Tell others verbally to go to "www.eff.org" and click "take action")
2. OBAMA SUPPORTERS: Go to My.BarackObama.com here and join the group requesting he oppose (as he did earlier) the amendment. This takes about 30 seconds. I suggest changing "ListServ" in the bottom right to "Do not receive e-mails." (Tell others verbally to search "obama please vote no" on Google and My.BarackObama.com will be in the top 3 results, currently #1)
Watch the video:
Some Highlights of the interview:
1. Why does the vote this Tuesday, July 8th matter to normal people who have nothing to hide?
Ordinary citizens who want to live in a democracy - including those with nothing to hide - should be concerned about the ability of the government to use private, sensitive personal information to blackmail, manipulate, and intimidate their representatives, journalists and their sources, potential whistleblowers, and activists or dissenters of any sort.
2. Couldn't it be argued that this type of surveillance ability has prevented another 9/11 from happening? Isn't it possible that this type of legislation has saved American lives?
The administration has claimed that is has, but without presenting a single piece of evidence that this is so, even in closed hearings to Senators with clearances on the Intelligence Committee. The FISA court has granted warrants in virtually every request that's been made of it that has any color of helping national security. The administration's decision to bypass that court, illegally, leads to a strong suspicion that they are abusing domestic spying, as some of their predecessors did, in ways that even the secret FISA court would never approve.
3. What are the most important factual inaccuracies about FISA found in the media?
Advocates of the bill take pride that it makes this amended FISA the exclusive basis for overhearing citizens, but that exclusivity is, in fact, in the current 30-year-old FISA bill already. President Bush simply ignored it in bypassing FISA, and there's not reason that he and his successors would not continue to do the same here.
It's been inaccurately stated that if this amendments didn't pass, FISA would expire. This is flatly false. FISA is open-ended and will continue as it already has, adequately for 30 years. What would expire are some blanket surveillance orders authorized last year, which the majority of Democrats, including Senator Obama, voted against.
The current bill does include one useful amendment to FISA, which could be passed with virtually unanimous approval in an afternoon, to allow warrantless interception of foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to pass through the United States. No one opposes this.
Various administration officials have claimed that the requirement of applying for a warrant from the FISA court deprived them of speed and flexibility. This is false. The FISA allows for surveillance to be implemented in an emergency situation before a warrant is sought, and that could undoubtedly be extended with Congressional approval without controversy.
What the administration seeks, and this bill provides, is permanent warrantless surveillance.
4. Let's consider an analogy: police officers have the legal right to stop you if you're going 56 mph in a 55-mph zone, but this right isn't often abused or applied to harass citizens. What makes you think the administration would abuse their surveillance powers if this amendment is approved?
The abuses of surveillance to which governments are drawn are those that keep them in office, used to intimidate and manipulate their rivals, and to avoid debate and dissent on their policies. These are exactly the abuses that the Church Committee discovered in 1975, which had been conducted on a wide-scale by the Johnson and Nixon administrations, and in some cases even earlier, which is what lead to FISA in the first place.
To remove judicial oversight, which this amendment would effectively do, is to invite the same kind of repressive abuse that lead to FISA in the first place.
5. Why would the current administration want this amendment to pass, if not for safety of citizens and prevention of attacks?
Using NSA to spy without judicial oversight or constraint on American citizens provides the infrastructure for dictatorship. George W. Bush has frequently said what other presidents may only have thought: "It would be a heck of a lot easier in a dictatorship, if only I were the dictator."
Other presidents have violated the law and the Constitution in much the same way as Bush, so long as they could do it secretly, but they haven't proclaimed that as a right of their office as Bush, Cheney and their legal advisors have done.
The oath of office they took, along with all members of Congress, was to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. I believe that, in the matters we've been discussing, the Founders had it right, not only for their time but for ours.
"The Us is not a Republic Anymore" is a good article for those that do not understand what made America a republic and that do not understand why it is that our republic has been lost.
The question then becomes what has replaced our republic. My answer is a de-facto fascist state. This is because American government under the Bush regime fits the definition of fascism. Part of that fitting the definition of fascism is the Bush regime has assumed dictatorial power without being challenged by Congress.
The original definition of fascism by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile is as follows:
Fascism, a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
Giovanni Gentile's definition of fascism was the source for the definition of fascism in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language which is as follows:
Fascism, a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Folks, take it seriously. Our republic has been destroyed. Also, that the best explanation for our present situation is that we are now living in a de facto fascist state.
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight D. Eisenhower
President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- was a Republican who most so-called GOPers on the far right would call a RINO and would not respect nor probably even vote for today.
Despite the shadow of the Cold War during his presidency and his extreme dislike of and concern about what he considered to be the threat of communism, Eisenhower was not inclined to be a saber-rattler. Part of his platform for his first presidential campaign was the ending of the Korean War -- which he sought and achieved.
He is quoted as having said numerous times that as someone who had been to war, he hated war, would avoid war, and would go to war only in defense of the country against a clear threat.
Eisenhower is reported to have sought and achieved a reduction in defense spending (not counting strategic arms and delivery systems due to the Cold War scare). Democrats, liberal Republicans, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and much of the press clamored for drastic increases in defense spending, but Eisenhower focused on the long term, slowing the arms race and keeping the economy intact in the process.
He was the only 20th century president to have presided over eight years of peace and prosperity as well as a balanced budget and an economy with negligible inflation.
It would seem likely, in view of what Eisenhower believed in and achieved and said, that the Pentagon today -- plus George Bush's military budgets -- plus the "unwarranted influence" of the military-industrial complex that now exists despite Eisenhower's having warned against it would amount to Ike's bane were he still alive.
In America, the Fourth of July is the day we celebrate the announcement, to the world, that a new kind of governing ideal had come to stay. It celebrates a letter, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, sent to King George III and the rest of the world telling them a new way of life has proven itself in America, and Americans want to retain that way.
That letter, rippling across the world, caused furious opposition toward America, disturbed all the rulers and elite who managed the lives of their subjects. It told the world that, no longer would the rule of the few over the many be the only way a nation existed. It said a new kind of government, from the people up, growing in America, that individual freedom was superior to the interests of the tribe as defined by its ruler.
It said Americans held these truths sacred, that though we grow and thrive in our inequalities, we are born equal before our Creator and the law. Each individual had the right, given by God, to live free, pursue his or her own interests, aspirations, talents and skills as long as they hurt no one. Furthermore, men are not subject to the rule of a few and no man was superior to another.
The world had never known this kind of condition. It was shocked by it. How could it be possible that ordinary men and women could be as great as the ruler, the aristocracy and the elite? What gall! What kind of preposterous notion was this? Everyone knew there were the few better people who were meant to rule the majority of uneducated, uninspired riff-raff. How can anyone even conceive of the ordinary riff-raff deciding for themselves what is in their best interests? However, the letter went out and a war was fought in an effort to cancel its provisions, which failed.
Did America's new idea of how to live prove itself? America, with only five percent of the world's population controls over twenty-five percent of the world's wealth and has been the one nation, among all, setting the standards for the rest of the world.
Today, Americans are on the verge of cancelling that letter. Too many today prefer to be managed riff-raff and no longer responsible for themselves. The task of living free is too difficult. We have arrived at a time when Americans are rejecting the contents of that letter, the Declaration of Independence, and want to return to the Old World ways, where the few elite rule the many. In the coming election, we are looking for the return of the elite few who will shape and manage our lives as they see fit.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the superb article that I read this morning by Paul Craig Roberts - a very well-known Columnist and former Assistant Secretary to the Treasury in the Reagan Administration - "We Take Precedence".
Here's an excerpt:
This slaughtering of foreigners doesn't seem to bother the American public. Americans take it for granted that Americans are superior and that American purposes, whatever they be, take precedence over the rights of other people to life and to a political existence independent of American hegemony.
The Bush regime has come up with a preemption doctrine that justifies attacking a country in order to prevent the country from possibly becoming a future threat to the US. "Threat" is broadly defined. It appears to mean the ability to withstand the imposition of US hegemony. This insane doctrine justifies attacking China and Russia, a direction in which the Republican presidential candidate John McCain seems to lean.
The callousness of Americans toward the lives of other peoples is stunning. How many Christian churches ask God's forgiveness for having been rushed into an error that has killed, maimed, and displaced a quarter of the Iraqi population?
Coming from a former Reagan Republican Government decision maker, and reflecting on the current state of Republican popularity, or lack thereof, I think it speaks volumes. I do know that it reflects my beliefs. And I also recommend the Charlie Reese article linked in Robert's piece.
I would also like to share a quote I once ran across, maybe from Tolstoy:
"Every war - with all its ordinary consequences - the murder with the justifications of its necessity and justice, the exaltation and glorification of military exploits, the worship of the flag, the patriotic sentiments - and so on, does more in one year to pervert men's minds than thousands of robberies, murders, and arsons perpetrated during hundreds of years by individual men under the influence of passion."
And one more from Tolstoy to go along with Robert's mention of Anticipatory Wars in that context
"What an immense mass of evil must result from allowing men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen."
Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.
According to the Thursday, 3:26 PM, June 30, 2008, issue of Information Clearing House, the slaughter is as follows, 1,225,899 Iraqi's killed, 4113 U.S. military personnel killed. The 4113 U.S. military personnel killed statistic is the official figure from the fascist American government. All official US statistics from the fascist American government are highly suspect. This is because the fascist American government lies about everything.
In addition, we do not have any information on how many American civilians were killed. This is because we do not know how many American paramilitary, that is people serving in American private fascist armies, were killed.
Next, who is big oil in this Iraqi oil resource rip-off? They are Exxon-Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum and Total. Total is a French oil company, and one of the six "Supermajor" oil companies in the world.
Now, why is all of this happening? It is because Iraq has oil and the fascist American government's function, as a fascist government, is to secure that oil for the pro-fascist American interests, and their pro-fascist American oil companies. After all, it was they who financed both Democratic and Republican political campaigns that put pro-fascist Democrats and pro-fascist Republicans into power.
That is, to support their backers, it is the "function" of the fascist American government to declare an illegal war and illegally invade Iraq, kill over 1.2 million Iraqis, maintain an occupying army in Iraq far into the future, sacrifice over 4100 Americans, incur over $532,000,000,000,000 in debt, all for the benefit of these four oil companies.
Bottom line: Any American that votes Republican or Democrat in the 2008 national elections deserves the screwing the fascist faction that controls the Republican Party, and the fascist faction that controls the Democratic Party, are sure to give them.
We pride ourselves as the prime purveyors of equality, the distinguishing characteristic of Democracy. More than a century ago, in 1879, Matthew Arnold reminded us that "Inequality has the natural and necessary effect, under the present circumstances, of materializing our upper class, vulgarizing our middle class, and brutalizing our lower class."
The Wall Street Journal tells us that "The gap between the winners and losers in the US is growing.. that even excluding capital gains, 75% of the pretax income growth (in years 2002 - 2006) went to the best-off 1% of American families."
Harvard Magazine features a study entitled "Unequal America, the growing gap", relating inequality of income to the US decrease in life expectancy in absolute terms and in comparison to other nations. Harvard University, with its endowment of some $35 billion, is surely expert in inequality
Warren Buffett, patron saint of American capitalism, repeatedly expresses his personal guilt at the injustice of his secretary paying her income tax at a rate much higher than he pays on his billion-dollar income. Does this astute collector of insurance companies' sense a potential revolt of the 99% against the one percent, remembering 1789, 1917, and 1948?
We are currently engaged in a great political battle to determine the direction of our great nation. But the basic question about fair distribution of the economic benefits of our enormously wealthy society is not being seriously addressed. How does inequality affect our national health, our rate of crime, our pursuit of happiness, our level of education, our economic productivity? And above all, what does it portend for the future of our prized Democracy.
When some Americans earn billions, their taxes, their fair share of the cost of maintaining our society-must rise dramatically. When some Americans earn less than a poverty wage, their benefits must rise dramatically. In a stable society in which the rich can enjoy their wealth, in which all will have sufficient benefits to motivate support for that society, some form of redistribution of income will be necessary. But we may not have to put a camel through the eye of a needle to accomplish this.
The candidates for the presidency must address these basic questions. Their supporters must demand answers. Inequality is a crisis for Democracy and the political process is the way to a solution.
We can look at people in America, as it relates to society and politics in three ways. Let's start with the smallest faction. First, there are people who are self-centered and without moral inhibitions who care nothing about anyone else or themselves. They are the reason we need laws, law enforcement, courts and jails. They have always been a small minority and a nuisance.
Second, there are people who believe, to the extent of their education, experience and achievements allow, they can stand on their own two feet and make their own way in the world, and believe everyone else is equally able to do the same. They feel they are all right and everyone else is too. They like and serve each other with their interests, talents, skills and aspirations, and are rewarded by others if they produce. All they need and want is the freedom to be what they can be.
Third, there is a faction consisting of two kinds of people, a few who believe they have all the answers and the many that are looking for help from them. This is the Pied Piper faction, the elite leader and the many followers.
America grew mighty and prosperous because, initially, we had more of the second faction, those who could do best for themselves who saw everyone else equal to the task. They simply did not want anyone from the other two factions getting in their way. Today, we call these people conservatives, libertarians and some republicans, and they will usually vote for people who agree with them.
The third faction is today's American liberals, a few wise and elite and the many that worship and look to them for help and guidance. They vote for those who agree with them. They are the communists, socialists and democrats. They will vote for the Pied Piper who promises to take care of them, taking from those who did well to give to those who will not be what they can be.
In America today, that third faction has grown and is open to the promises of the Pied Piper, in this case, Barack Obama and his cadre of socialists.
Common Cause is running an interesting petition called "Recapture the Flag." Here's a brief overview:
We The People believe in the Constitution, the rule of law and justice for all. We will not stand by as our democracy suffers at home and our nation's reputation is tarnished abroad.
The U.S. flag has long stood as a symbol of liberty, justice and freedom - a beacon of hope in a troubled world. We pledge to work to Recapture the Flag by demanding a government that respects human rights, leadership that rejects all forms of corruption, and elected officials who fiercely challenge anyone who seeks to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The problem is not bailouts per se, it is the popular notion that "democracy" is good for all that might ail us as a nation.
Creeping democracy is allowing the voters to grant themselves indemnification from all of life's hazards, and our willing politicians are more than happy to go along to get (re)elected since they can use other people's money to pay for it all!
History teaches us the fate of all democracies is the same -- they eventually fail when voters demand so much that the treasury is bankrupt.
Debra Sweet's article, Threats, Blockades, Sanctions, Airstrikes on Iran, ALL wrong, leaves out the real intent in punishing Iran. Iran must be punished or destroyed because it is a Sovereign Nation, that wishes to pursue its own path, follow its own destiny.
Under Cheney/Bush, that is the ultimate crime.
Not to be subservient to the nation with the greatest number of WMD's and the most hubris on the planet. If you do not agree with us and do our bidding, then, as der Bush said so long ago, "If you are not with us, you are against us."
In Cheney/Bush terms, that means subversion, or elimination.
The deaths of millions means nothing to them, as long as it improves profits and power.
Since We the People are allowing this to happen without any checks and balances, by electing legislators (our alleged representatives) who will rubber stamp whatever the Oligarchy and its minions insist upon, we, too, are complicit in this global rape, theft and murder, carried out in our name.
In reading, "The Coming Catastrophe," I am reminded of pre-World War One Czarist Russia. The czars and their ruling economic/political/military elite had absolutely no concept of how totally unprepared, and therefore vulnerable, Russia was for total war in the Twentieth Century.
How fragile their whole feudal economic system really was. They were completely ignorant of how precarious their hold on the reins of power were. What sort of forces existed within their own society that could seize political power the moment they faltered. They had no idea of how far they could fall from power.
To me, the ruling American fascist elite are in a position very similar to that of the pre-World War One Russian Czars. The ruling elite are about to embark on a military adventure that potentially could devastate American capitalism and in the process destroy their own hold on power.
Yet, they apparently have no idea of what may lie before them.
