I've been working on the majority of this for quite some time and was about to paste it in a forum discussion (found here) until I realized that it's even longer than my usual rants (I guess that's what happens when I let it build over time ;p). Some of the segments/content herein are new or altered and serve primarily as response to posts in the forum.
It seems we have similar views, but I find it hard to believe that a constitutionalist (like myself) would vote for McCain simply based on his Senate record. Ron Paul was the most constitutionally aligned candidate this election, but bad press and primary campaign funding coming from the grassroots internet movement didn't put him far enough forward for people to research his platform enough to understand his position. My opinion about America and it's core values seems, to me, to be common sense from middle school social studies class, but it may be that many Americans have become too lazy or their perspective is outside the scope of my understanding. I agree with you on a lot of the points you make, but I don't think that you've actually given any particularly good reasons for your position. I also believe that more people should acknowledge just how much George W. Bush has hurt our constitutional rights; this is very important because John McCain has voted 90+% along with Bush over several years while he and his confused VP receive support from bigoted leaders without addressing the awful things they say. It's also incredibly important that the American people not be convinced to let up on their prying; these people will become the most powerful people in the world. It's massively important that we let resolution come (the opposite of postponing) to things like the next troopergate investigation before making decision about a woman who could very easily become a replacement president with an unadressed reasonable statistical possibility of natural death.
I feel that the absolute most important principle in American values is freedom. I define freedom as the right to do whatever you want so long as you do not get in the way of anybody else doing what they want. I believe that in America, the only purpose of law is to protect our freedoms. Murder, rape, theft, discrimination, etc. are matter-of-factly an aggression against the freedom of another citizen. With that said, I think that voting for a candidate (who isn't even running for part of the legislative branch, mind you) based on their opinions about concepts that we can not, based entirely on fact, say is an attack on the freedom of another should not even touch the floor of congress, let alone be part of a candidate's platform. The tiered/federalized system supports the possibility of like-minded people grouping and enforcing common opinion; the federal governments primary purpose is to protect our constitutional liberties. We do, however, have quite a mess on our hands given the state of the economy.
Income tax is entirely unconstitutional as the 16th amendment was never properly ratified and it is neither a direct apportioned tax, nor an indirect uniform tax (this interview does a fine job explaining the position) and is therefore not even remotely close to an executive branch concern so much as legislative and/or judicial. It is also against our founding principles due to the fact that it enforces taxation in Washington D.C. and other unrepresetned zones (taxation without representation, anybody?). The same branch-orientation applies to abortion as the only thing a president can do is appoint justices and choose to veto or not, which congress can, on our behalf, override in a true majority based decision anyway (overriding veto with process or judicial review with new legislation/ammendments). We should be looking for a president that knows these things well, as it will be his job, and acts accordingly. We don't need a President who is pro-choice or pro-life, we don't need a President who will legalize drugs (as much as I believe drug related infractions should be based on what laws they've broken that affect other people, like killing someone while driving intoxicated, not based on what you decided to put in your body while sitting in the comfort of your living room) since he can't legalize/decriminalize anything.
What we truly need is a President who knows to Veto a bill that does not benefit the majority of our population, such as the Patriot Act which was written before the event utilized to pass it and which passed without elected officials even reading it. We need a president that doesn't "authorize" warrantless wire-types on US citizens without reason. We need a President that knows that passing a law that gives the President the ability to declare martial law is the opposite of supporting our constitution's foundation (too late again, of course). We need a President that isn't going to lie to us to support his own agenda or cover his friends' a**es or to establish fake enemies with no proof which degrade society by supporting race/religious hate and enforce an international stereotype of the mean and stupid nature of Americans.
Unfortunately, over the last century we've dug ourselves into such a deep hole of non-majority supporting legislation that, at this point, we need government involvement just to clean up after the mess we let our government make in the first place, but far more importantly we need Americans that hold their representation accountable and force action even when our politicians turn into flopping fish because of their campaign funding or other misrepresentation rationalizations. We need Americans that are willing to push their representation for impeachment when their position has been misused, rather than over suits that with little impact on America that can be handled in civil courts.
The privatized fiat currency we've allowed to gradually destroy our economy while being convinced (for whatever reason I do not know) that printing more of it can actually fix something is a mess that can't be resolved in one term. The money we waste declaring war on our own people (War on Drugs) sending armed forces into the homes of families near "farmers" in California (this used to be illegal), or arresting large numbers of people in unfortunate circumstances negatively affecting one or two people, all the while bailing out white collar criminals who have potentially contributed to the destruction of the lives of millions (criminals punished by paying them millions of dollars for failing to perform their duties effectively). This isn't something that can be fixed without the government, it's something the government needs to fix on our behalf.
Lastly, while battleground states can be very narrow lines, the only reason that it is currently "impossible" to elect a candidate outside the two major parties is that everybody seems to think that they have to vote one or the other or they're throwing their vote away. This isn't actually a two-party country, there's just an illusion that benefits big business and continuity of current tactics. The person who wins is the person with the most electoral college votes, no questions asked, period. Still, regardless of differences of opinion I'm very happy to see that many of us are still actively engaging in discussion and debate about these concerns. It gives me hope, and it's the only thing we can use to change these dangerous illusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with the majority of what you have said. I disagree slightly with your stances on the income tax and the patriot act.
[Edited some Late-Night Typos]:
Regardless of differences of opinion, I appreciate your comments and your right to an opinion.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with the entire Patriot Act, but I do believe that the atmosphere and circumstance used to pass a bill that was written well before any of it actually occurred as well as a name that would make someone appear "unpatriotic" for voting against it were all wrong. It's clear that very few, if any, of the members of Congress even read the bill before passing it, which is absolutely unacceptable in my book. Anything that is going to go into legislation should not only be read in its entirety by our representatives (isn't that what they're getting paid for?) in government, but should also be readable by ourselves as well, which gives us the opportunity to voice our views on it to the people that are supposed to be representing our decisions. Government of the people, by the people, for the people?
The most concerning portions of the Patriot Act apply to US citizens, which is clearly not the most common avenue for "terrorists." There are parts of the Patriot Act that make sense, but I do not believe there is any such crime that, in America, charged against American citizens, can not be tried in the same Court of Law as every other punishable offense; perhaps Non-Disclosure may be in accordance, but the Patriot Act literally gives various forms of Law Enforcement the ability to search, detain and try a citizen with no warrant in front of a specially selected military court for being a suspected "terrorist," (which is an incredibly vague term) in a manner that can be determined "treason" (punishable by death, immediately after a military hearing, meaning future evidence may have no bearing [the WMDs didn't exist and the "evidence" was fake, but would that have mattered the day after trial?]). I will post again, sometime in the near future, about my thoughts on what "terrorism" is and how the term has been used, but, in general, if someone has done something truly wrong, would it not be easy for a court of peers to determine so? The purpose of this provision in our constitution/bill of rights is to prevent the government and/or military (same thing) from abridging our civil liberties by imposing/accusing people of things the general populace does not believe to be the case or do not believe to actually be wrong. Many of the provisions of the Patriot Act have already been found, by Federal Courts, to be unconstitutional. My questions are as such: if so many portions of this law have been decided to be "unconstitutional" should it have been passed at all? What are we paying these people for? Who is protecting our best interest? The "Judicial Branch" is the last stop in "checks and balances" because somebody actually has to bring a court case to them for anything to change (and by precedent only, really). It should never have made it that far, and especially not more than once. What were our members of Congress doing, and after that, when it only took one man to read it (our President) why did it still move forward? What was on his mind/agenda at the time?
Also, I do not necessarily believe income tax to be wrong, in fact I am only where I am today because of social services provided by American Tax Payers, but it should be understood that our current system, much like the patriot act, was a "must pass" legislation that went to the floor when most representatives weren't even able to be present, also during a circumstantial period, and, even worse, it was an "amendment." If you research the specific chain of events, you will be able to see a clear emptiness in ratification of the amendment, because it was not actually ratified by enough states to make it a real amendment; the privately "owned" members in government just pretended it was (and there was no internet to help the citizens of the nation with transparency). It is also very easy to see direct connections between our taxation system and the unfair (and reasonably fake) banking institutions of America; the "Federal" reserve is not a part of the government, it's a private company (as in, not even a public corporation that can be purchased into, as in not at all controlled by the American populace; sure some regulations are in place, but we've recently seen how easy it is to move sensible regulations out of the way for private business interest). Our taxes don't actually pay anything we take advantage of in America, we use Loans for those and pay the interest with our taxes; I'm young, but this sounds an awful lot like when I learned how to juggle credit (which ultimately ended in financial crisis, including a period of time through which I was homeless...). Any thoughts that might change my perspective per-chance?
Post a Comment