Next Show: ...loading...

A Call to Action

November 28, 2004

The problem with our glorious Constitutional system of checks and balances is that when one side rigs the ENTIRE system (judges appointing Presidents, gerrymandering Congressmen needing only 40% to win a majority, Members of Congress not being allowed to read bills, debate legislation, or investigate Presidential actions, the President lying to Congress, Congress failing to obey its own rules, all three branches conducting secret proceedings, increasing one-party control of the media), there literally is no way out absent a true landslide victory for the opposition party or massive civil disobedience of the kind that happened in the 1960’s or is happening now in Ukraine. The system is broken. We are seeing the Constitution start to fail us as One-Party Rule begins to consolidate itself. And it is scary. George Orwell was right, just 20 years too soon.

The comments of a conservative contributor to this blog persuaded me that the Democrats must step up action aggressively. The blogger found it extremely difficult to believe Kerry’s concession if there was a chance Kerry could win. He suggests that “EVERY Democratic US House of Representative and Senator” would cause government gridlock if that were the case.
And his question is powerful and applies even more to Gore in 2000 than Kerry today. “If the election was unfair,” we may ask “why didn’t every Democratic House and Senate member call for gridlock?” It’s an apt question. Why not, indeed?
That was exactly my point in 2000 when I, and thousands of others who followed my lead, called for the complete filibuster of ALL Bush judges until we could have a President selected by WE THE PEOPLE rather than five lawless Supreme Court judges.
But the Democrats rejected my aggressive position and decided to accept the lawless, undemocratic Supreme Court ruling “for the good of the country.”
But see? The conservative blogger is unwittingly teaching us something here. The right-wing attacks when there is nothing there (Swift Boats) and takes stuff wildly out of proportion (“Rather-Gate”) while Democrats, working for the good of the country, swallow a lawless coup d’etat.
We can’t do this anymore. If we cave in, the right-wing and middle America will respect us LESS and destroy us MORE. They are uncompromising in victory or defeat. We must be the same.
The right-wing that controls our Government did not respect Kerry’s positive campaigning or positive convention. The right-wing does not respect Democratic attempts to bring this country together. The right-wing did not respect Gore’s (or Kerry’s) concessions even though Gore won the election and Kerry has chances to win (albeit very small). Gore and Kerry thought they were falling on their sword for their country, in the hopes that it would bring our country together. But NO right-wing Presidential candidate would have done this, not since Nixon (who would be considered uber-liberal today).
The right-wing ONLY respects us when we aggressively defend our rights and principles. They only listen in the slightest when we create gridlock, cause a media uproar, and/or take to the streets. If we try to compromise, the Republicans will not only completely ignore us and trash our principles, they will even roll over their own moderates.
They will not stop until we have a nation that transfers practically all wealth from the poor and middle class to massive corporations and require us all to live by strict fundamentalist law as defined by Jerry Falwell. Massive debt. Massive censorship. Few, if any, student loans. No more Social Security. No more separation of Church and State. No more “equal protection under the law.” Little liberty to criticize the government. Little knowledge of what happens in government at all, as the government meets in secret and the media is converted to yes-men.
I guess the goal is to make us all pledge allegiance to an unburnable flag of the United States of America, and to the un-criticizable dictatorship for which it would stand: two unequal nations under Falwell’s God, divisible into those with power and those with none, with no more liberty or justice for anyone (except those that bribe the Government).
The only way to stop the right-wing juggernaut is massive, aggressive, hard-hitting gridlock. That’s why Nancy Pelosi’s demand that Members of Congress be allowed to READ bills before voting on them and her refusal to accept a unanimous vote until the Republicans accede to her demand is so important.
We need to push Pelosi to go farther. Democrats in Congress SHOULD OBSTRUCT EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE (including a complete shut-down of the government) until the Republicans agree to end martial law and OBEY CONGRESSIONAL RULES ALLOWING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TIME TO READ AND DEBATE BILLS BEFORE VOTING ON THEM.
It’s a simple demand, it’s a basic principle, and I’m confident that the American People will rally behind it, even if it means not increasing the debt ceiling and shutting down the Government. The Democrats need to do this now. And you can encourage them to do so with your phone calls.
Gridlock is our only answer. The Republican blogger has unwittingly convinced me of this, and he should convince you of it as well. This Government does not respect compromise. It only respects power. And we must fight the power with power.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Tommy Peterson November 30, 2004 11:14 pm

    (I don’t know if I am suppose to post this here or in the other area but I am putting it here for lack of knowing any better.)
    I have spoken with people of late that in all sincerity and rather quietly among close friends have predicted that America’s form of democracy, given the current direction in this country, with not last for much longer. I have heard several people say that if we continue down the path we are on that American will either have to adopt (revert?) its democracy to more of an English system, for example, or face extension. I have given this thought as I was shocked to hear this myself.
    The discussion were along the lines that our founding fathers meant well . . . had the grandest of hopes but that our country has not been shaping up to the ideal that they wrote about. And given our society’s failures and our seemingly inability to fix them that Europe will rise from the ashes it was left after WWII to dominate in culture, democracy, and economics.
    What do you think?

  • Dr. Freud November 30, 2004 8:55 pm

    Tommy did you convince yourself with that argument? Is that your definition?
    You forgot to mention Christ consciousness and love–if your fundamentals direct away from fruits of love–then they don’t qualify as a religion at all (call it a cult or an ilk, then)Christianity without the spiritual essence of Christ Consciousness is a dead doornail.
    But if your fundamentals direct toward love and Christ consciousness-of course–welcome to the party–the party of total joy operating with the “Golden Rule” in mind.

  • Tommy Peterson November 30, 2004 7:12 pm

    I see your distinction and I agree with you in part. However, I feel we must part ways on the religious issue.
    I firmly, unequivacally, undeniably believe that this country’s greatness was founded on the Christian ideals of our founding fathers. Up until recently (within my lifetime) the country was outwardly a Christian country, primarily, but at the same time permiting , accepting, and NOT restricting people of other faiths to practice as they wish (hence freedom of religion).
    I also STRONGLY believe that a lot of our social ills are attributed to the segregation of Christianity from our society as a whole of late. I find our young people are desperate for it. I find adults yearn for it. Sooooo many people are unhappy. Soooo many people describe missing somethign. Sooooo mandy people explain a “void.” I think that void is Christianity. I think the declination of our society is in direct parallel with this country having veered off course from its original path established by our founding fathers by allowing its fate to be in the hands of anti-Christian liberals. And I will even goes as far to say that I feel that within 20 years, we will all have a lot more on our minds than which party is dominate, despite your and Nathan’s predictions, if we stay this course.
    I am in favor of amending the constitution to put the Christian God rightfully out front in our society, but not a theocracy. I think our public schools should begin and end with prayer and I think Christianity should be taught during the day as well. I think that “Blue Laws” should be imposed nationally, not just locally, giving Americans a day of rest that they can use to attend services or not. I think that school vouchers should be put in place to allow students of other religions the option of attending a school that emphasizes their religion, if they are not happy attending a public one.
    If done, I think we will be discussing America’s drug and alchohol abuse problems, high divorce rate, misbehaving youth, low productivity, lack of ingenuity, etc.
    I would even suggest that our country needs to institute a national service that some other countries have where both young men AND women are legally made to serve in the military arm of their choice for one year upon completing high school.
    If all this is done, I think Americans will not be so divide but will again care about themselves, their country, and the world. I think America will return to its greatness and will be the place that people again wish to live in.
    Having said all this I am favor of freedom of religion. (Stop scoffing.) I think people should be able worship their God as they wish either on their own or public property just as you said.
    And I think that the ENDA should still be put into action as well. I think just because Christianity is taught in schools, for example, that people should not be forced to be Christians. But I’m sure that some would say that I am advocating anything but that.
    I am in favor of the balance being struck and for personal responsibility. Only I would approach this in an 180 direction than you are suggesting.

  • Tommy Peterson November 30, 2004 6:51 pm

    What is a true Christian? One that follows the laws/fundamentals/principles of Christianity . . . therefore a fundamentalist.

  • Dr. Freud November 30, 2004 6:44 pm

    Mark, I think I laid down a pretty practical criterion for my differentiation between a true and a false religion –murder–my argument was that a set of ideas that condone or promulgate murder is not religion under whatever facade–and that differences should be made between those who follow a religion seeking love and those who use the cover of that religion to advocate hate or less-than-love agendas
    Killing for Allah and Killing for Christ–still stand as oxymorons to denote the error between a definitive religion (sets of precepts dedicated to effecting love)and a renegade body of thought that effects other than love in very material ways.
    So what is a true Muslim? A practitioner of a religion not a follower of a renegade body of thought as shown by the effects of the religion on the world population (It’s about good fruit-bad fruit–in very material terms–before even considering the esoteric)